Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article cleanup

Despite the efforts of linkspammers and personal attacks from anon users with no edit history, the article is now fully sourced. I've archived the old talkpage as it was not concerned so much with the article as it was with silly partisan bickering. Cheers. L0b0t 16:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant, biased information

The fact that RFK's grandfather was a bootlegger is not germane to information about his arrest for heroin possession, and seems to be an attempt to draw a specious line of causality between Joseph Kennedy's alcohol smuggling and Robert Jr.'s substance abuse. Additionally the editorializing regarding RFK's Rolling Stone article on the 2004 election should be excised as well. Perhaps l0b0t has a personal bone to pick with the Kennedy family, but this has no place in Wikipedia. Malodorous stank 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The only editorializing going on comes from the anons who keep removing sourced content. The "grandson of a bootlegger" and the "erroneous" are both statements of fact, any "specious line of causality" is being inferred by you. If you have any evidence that RFK Jr. is not the grandson of a bootlegger bring it to the talk page. If you have any evidence that the Democrats won the 2004 election and G.W. Bush is not the president, then bring it to the talk page. If you do not have a source that backs up your claim, then leave the article alone. Cheers. L0b0t 17:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So why not "grandson of a U.S. Ambassador to Britain?" Why not "nephew of a U.S. President?" Aside from the fact that the edits to which you continue to revert contain typographical and grammatical errors -- "... the 30 -year-old grandson ..." should be "... Kennedy, then 30 and the grandson ..." -- this is clearly an injection of information which, while factually true, has absolutely no relevance to the facts at hand. Joseph Kennedy is not even mentioned by name in the article, rather, the word "bootlegger" links to his article. This is flat-out libel.

As for the "refutation" of Kennedy's RS article, your source cited is of an editorial nature and by no means settles the question with the level of certainty suggested by the tone and word choice. In fact, the wording in the Wiki article is taken verbatim from the subheadline of the Salon article. In fact the Salon piece contains passages like:

As Kennedy documents, in the months prior to the election, [Ohio's then-Secretary of State Kenneth] Blackwell issued a series of arbitrary and capricious voting and registration rules that could well have disenfranchised many people in the state.

Which could form the basis of a similarly inappropriate and slanted assessment vindicating Kennedy. Malodorous stank 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry I was being stubborn. Cheers. L0b0t 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Corrections

To "Homefill" the ardent Kennedy detractor who keeps resorting to erasing entries and edits that are factual and cited:

Regarding the heroin bust, you are riposting potentially libelous and unverified claims made in UK tabloid news. The AP, NYTimes and TIME, among others, all reported Kennedy left the plane before his arrest and was in his seat when the crew became aware of his condition, not on the bathroom floor. There was no "needle in his arm." Wiki is not the place for citing tabloid sensationalism.

Similarly, re: alleged royalty payments, this re-appearing description that begins "Although he speaks out on environmental issues" and then "making money in the very industry he rails against" these are not objective phrases and have no place in a Wiki entry. Share your opinions in the blogosphere, Wiki is for facts and objectivity.

Also, stop re-inserting the inaccurate description of the NRDC as a "lobbying group..." That's not accurate. You clearly have an anti-environmental agenda here, which doesn't belong on Wiki.

As L0b0t says below, this is not the place for 'silly partisan bickering' and 'personal attacks', post facts and cite them to primary sources. Have some respect for Wiki! Goshawks 08:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The info about the arrest is sourced to a UK newspaper; that certainly passes muster with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Also, please assume good faith, it is rather insulting that you would make assumptions about another editor's "agenda". Your edits were reverted because you made wholesale changes without discussion on the talk page. Some of the sources you added were great and have been retained, some (blogs) are wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia and have been removed. Also, you pine for "primary sources", please see here for the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and why we try to avoid using primary sources. As for the NRDC, do they lobby state and federal officials on behalf of environmental causes? Why yes they do, making them just as much a lobbying firm as the AARP, MPAA, or the Moral Majority. Does the NRDC work to strengthen existing environmental law and in some cases enact new legislation? Why yes they do. Does the NRDC work to restrict the uses to which private property may be put by its owners? Yes, yes they do that as well. Homefill 21:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To Homefill:

What is the “good faith” sense of posting “unconscious in an airplane bathroom with a needle stuck into his arm” Homefill? What relevance does this offer to an encyclopedia entry?

Kennedy doesn’t hide his past struggles; he talks about them openly in books and interviews. Did it occur to you to post that he has been sober ever since, over 20 years now? I’m not trying to remove the heroin possession fact, so there’s no “whitewashing” going on here. Explain for us, what is your purpose then, to include sensational, potentially libelous, and unverified claims of unconscious lavatory floor needle-in-arm allegations.

Time magazine reported in 1983: “Traveling alone from Minneapolis to Rapid City, S. Dak., aboard a Republic Airlines Convair, Kennedy suddenly grew sick and dazed. Alarmed passengers near him reportedly summoned the flight attendant, who passed the word to the cockpit. The pilot radioed ahead to Rapid City to request that a paramedic and ambulance be on hand to meet the flight. When the plane landed, Kennedy was helped down the steps, but declined medical assistance.”

That was reported soon after the incident in 1983 (and is consistent with other news accounts directly concerned with the bust). Now contrast that with the revisionist sensationalism in the Times UK in January 2007 in an article about politics, (not a secondary source in a contemporary report about this specific incident).

Look closely at the way the Times correspondent botches the details of the incident: “after he was found unconscious on the floor of a South Dakota airport toilet with a needle stuck in his arm.”

Can you find any contemporary account of this incident that claims that Kennedy was “unconscious” or “on the floor” or in an “airport toilet” (he was on the plane, remember? Not in the airport).

Your source is clearly not accurate. Do you concur that this Times UK story is not the best reference to rely on here?

Why did you remove my citation to the contemporary New York Times coverage then?

I suspect others will agree with me that there’s no “good faith” in your efforts here. Is it your intent to use this graphic imagery to slander the man? If not, then stop riposting this fictitious claim, please.

Regarding the NRDC, no, they are not a “lobbying firm” in fact. They hold 501(c)(3) status with the IRS as a non-profit organization. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c) As such, they are quite restricted in the amount of lobbying they can do and it’s not their primary function (which is public education on environmental issues, followed by occasional litigation to ensure enforcement of existing environmental laws).

In fact, this encyclopedia's creator holds the same designation, please look at the bottom of this page where it says “Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.” Would you call Wikimedia a “lobbying firm” Homefill?

As a 501c3, NRDC is nothing like the groups you list: AARP (a 501c4, donations are not tax-deductible), MPAA (a 501c6 trade association, donations are not tax-deductible), or the Moral Majority (which dissolved in 1989).

Agreed? So then, how about this: “a non-profit organization based in New York which works to strengthen existing environmental laws.”

That description is based on facts “easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person,” not on agenda-driven, disparaging mischaracterizations like yours. Remember: “make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.” Goshawks 15:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

2005/06 Appearances On The Sean Hannity Show

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has appeared on the syndicated Sean Hannity Radio Show in 2005 and 2006. Once, Sean's listeners heard Robert discuss an upcoming appearance before an environmental audience. Sean inquired as to Robert's mode of transportation between upcoming gigs and was told that Robert would be taking a private jet. Reacting to this light-heartedly, Sean expresses his opinion that telling an audience how important it is not to waste energy, and then immediately zooming off on a private jet, is incongruent behavior. But Robert has an explanation: he says he only rides along on private jets that happen to be going to his destination. Sean laughs out loud at the ridiculous remark - and he has kept the sound bite and replayed it many times since.

Jessemckay 10:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Kennedy Jr. NOT anti-vaccine, he's pro-regulation and more careful study of vaccines

This article calls Robert Kennedy Jr. Anti-vaccine. On the contrary, his work and rhetoric shows he just wants better regulation and inspection of vaccines--manufactured by for-profit large pharmaceuticals--to make them safer. And to have more studies to look at ingredients of vaccines and their possible effects. I think this characterization of him being "anti-vaccine" should be stricken. I have no affiliation with the man. I just think this kind of broad labeling is dangerous and inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8400:5050:2C1B:77D5:166E:9A94 (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This is nonsense and has been discussed ad nauseam. He (RFK Jr) claims not to be anti-vaccine and doesn't like the label but all experts agree that he is. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that he is not, 'anti vaccine'. I've just watched him in a discussion saying quite clearly that he is in favour of vaccination but wants proper testing of vaccines. Never mind loaded phrases like, 'ad nausem'. The label has been challenged again and again here because it is a false claim and because anyone can verify that. It is particularly bad that a false claim is made against a living person where Wiki rules require extra care. If he says he is pro-vaccination, then that must be respected. He would be in his rights to bring legal action (and he is a lawyer). Lindosland (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you making WP:LEGAL threats? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Citations #4 and #5 calling him anti-vaccine and that he believes in the link between autism and vaccines do not actually provide any real evidence of his positions. They are simply news articles characterizing him as anti-vaccine, but don't actually cite any instance or language he has used. Let's not be lazy here with our citations. If he is really so thoroughly anti-vaccine, it shouldn't be that hard to find a direct quote or specific documentation of his activities. Scoppettone (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You are making demands for sourcing that are not backed up by policy. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to check where a reliable source got its data from. And we are definitely not supposed to use primary sources in order to question the secondary ones. Please read WP:SECONDARY. Also, take a look at older discussions on this Talk page and the archives. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021

"He is an anti-vaccine activist and 'conspiracy theorist' and promotes the scientifically-'debunked link' between vaccines and autism.Robert F Kennedy Jr. is well-known for spreading COVID-19 'misinformation and pseudoscientific anti-vaccine misinformation' on social media platforms."

The sources sited are not credible (they have an overt and specific bias) for these inflammatory statements. Please correct the language to make statements without the controversial opinions or use non bias references to back up opinions.

 Not done. The cited (not sited) sources are reliable and the description of RFK Jr. is accurate. They will stay. This has been discussed on this page many times before. Please see reliable source, WP:MEDRS, and earlier conversations about this on this talk page and its archives. Thanks. Also, please be sure to sign your posts with four consecutive ~ marks after you're done in the future. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist ?

Why does RFK Jr. have the conspiracy theorist label? This label is not fair. Just because someone has an opposing opinion with the main stream narrative does not make them a conspiracy theorist. Robert Kennedy Jr has worked very hard in the area of vaccines and his opinion deserves consideration. The conspiracy theorist label makes it too easy for people to dismiss him as crazy, of which he certainly is not. Please remove this label. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki0307 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You are right in saying that having "an opposing opinion with the main stream narrative" is not enough. What gave you the idea that that was the reason for calling him that?

But making claims like "Anthony Fauci and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are trying to profit off a vaccine", claims of a conspiracy for which he has no evidence, is enough to make him a conspiracy theorist. The articles calls him that because reliable sources have made that connection, and Wikipedia follows reliable sources. If you do not agree with what the sources say or with the way Wikipedia works, that is your problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

And please sign your contributions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It's completely fair, RFK Jr is a conspiracy theorist. That's plain as day. It stays. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Multiple criticisms of his positions are overstated or outright false

Article asserts that he claims but that there is no evidence of vaccine related injury, but there is a government agency that tracks this. https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html With snapshots of the tables available to look out without downloading at: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/at-least-273-deaths-9845-adverse-events-after-covid-vaccination-so-far-cdc-data I've read on this talk page that some people are trying to make the page reflect his actual positions rather than his opponent's distorted view of him. It's easy to find information from reliable sources for both sides of the argument, why can't the page reflect reality rather than propagandizing the argument. The only thing we're signaling by so obviously overstating the counter position is giving credence to his arguments because people think if they weren't the truth then why would the opposing side need to lie. Watched a livestream today where this topic was touched on relating to his recent ban from instagram, the streamer brought up the wikipedia page and systematically showed that the criticism of his positions was overstated or plainly false. I couldn't believe how wrong this was, I've used Wiki since middle school and I couldn't believe that the accountability system could be so easily defeated. I just wanted to point this out, I don't know how to edit but I'm hoping that better editors can review this and make this page more balanced and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.3.40.143 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Useless comment, you need to point specifically to what is overstated or false. These sections are very well sourced to his actual statements, which are increcredibly dangerous and will results in the deaths of thousands of people who refuse the covid vaccines. Thank god this liar was banned from Instagram and it's a shame he hasn't been from every other platform too. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• But really, don't give us this vague shit, link to this livesteam or specify how the "accountability system" was "defeated". Seriously I'd love to improve the article if you think it's inaccurate but you have to be clear where. It would be unbalanced to give credence to Kennedy's lies about autism if "balance" is what you want. We're not ignorant of the government's vaccine adverse event database you link – but if you know anything about VAERS you'd know that a report can be filed by anyone about any potential adverse event and this does not mean a medical determination has been made that "these people died of the covid vaccine", they're merely reports that someone has died. Let's think carefully here: every year, 2,854,838 Americans die; that's 7,800 every day! Since about 38% of the population has already gotten a vaccine, we'd expect 38,000,000 people * 870 deaths per 100,000 population per year * 1/12 of a year = roughly 27,000 of them would have died in the last month! And take in mind it's mostly older people who have gotten vaccinated so far so the natural death rate would have been much higher than that! So if a few hundred have died within a week of getting a vaccine, that actually sounds pretty good! The most common serious side effect of the covid vaccine is anaphylaxis, and no one has died of that! So please, stop reading Lifesitenews, which is banned from Wikipedia for publishing "false or fabricated information." Seriously, if you read the VAERS reports linked from your linked site, they include lines like "per nursing home staff they did not expect pt to make it many more days. pt was unresponsive in room when shot was given. per nursing home staff pt was 14 + days post covid" for an 88-year-old at a senior living facility, and "There is no evidence to support that the vaccine caused his death in any way" for an 82-year-old at a senior living facility who "was very ill and had numerous chronic health issues prior to vaccination," and "She died as a result of COVID-19 and her underlying health conditions and not as a result of the vaccine" – but this is still one of those deaths reported in VAERS the author is counting because he's willfully lying to you about how this database works! It takes a lot of intellectual dishonesty and disregard for the broader science and statistics to make the scaremongering claims Kennedy has. Reywas92^Talk 06:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has published outrageous lies routinely especially regarding the vaccine controversy. The article about Andrew Wakefield is a collection of lies easily de-bunked by a little reading outside of Wikipedia. The idea that Wikipedia’s terms of use somehow keep the content accurate is nonsense. How much support does Wiki get from pharmaceutical interests?

The book “Inoculated” by Kent Heckenlively details the interaction between CDC senior scientist William Thompson and Professor Brian Hooker. Thompson documented the actions taken by CDC leadership to destroy their own data because these data contradicted the official posture that there exists no link between vaccines and autism. Thompson saved these data that show an irrepressible correlation between autism in black boys and the MMR vaccine when administered at 2 months. Hooker analyzed the data, obtained triple peer reviewed advice to publish, only to see the publication de-scheduled at the last minute. Pressure from the Federal Health Agencies? This connection cannot be investigated scientifically. Why has Thompson not gotten a subpoena from Congress even though he was asking for one? Such is the control over information available to the public wielded by the Federal Health Agencies under the thumb of the Pharmaceutical industry. This is not conspiracy theory. The connection between autism and vaccines is by no means de-bunked by Science.

To state in the Wiki article that RFK, Jr. is a “conspiracy theorist” because he warns of the dangers of vaccinations is just hogwash.

The anal preoccupation with this “scientific” paper or that one is to hide behind the uncertainly all of these publications suffer from. Much more meaningful is to take the empirical view...the overall trends that warn of a catastrophe in progress. The alternative is to put aside common sense in favor of pharmaceutical dogma. And one must accept that what comes from the Federal Health Agencies is not always science.

The lies regarding Wakefield? Do your homework. Wakefield pioneered research on the gut-brain interaction. His work has been repeated world-wide. He committed no fraud and was never “disgraced”‘except by mainstream media and the medical board in the Britain that was itself de-bunked by the High Court. Wikipedia get your facts straight.

Carickfergus (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The same Kent Heckenlively who is a known antivaxxer and was denied an Australian visa and who has advocated for the banning of all vaccinations? Who calls himself the "world's #1 antivaxxer"? I'm not sure his book would qualify as WP:RS. If you are suggesting changes, please bring reliable sources and specific edit suggestions. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

In short, you have two conflicting accounts from two differents sources: the scientific community and Wikipedia on one hand and Kennedy and his antivax troops on the other. And if source A and source B contradict each other, obviously source A must be wrong. Which, in this case, is the scientific community and Wikipedia. Sound logic, as always in this area. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

False "anti-vaccine" claims

Robert has spoken about his view on vaccines and has debunked wild theories of him being "anti-vaccines".

Putting this on his Wikipedia-page behind edit-protection is defamation at best, wanting people to be aware of the risks of vaccines isnt being "anti".

Let me make an example, would you call someone "anti car" if they saw flaws in the safety of cars that could potentially harm people? Of course not.

This "anti vaccine" schtick is a prop from the Big Pharma-companies fearing people wont buy their products if they learn about them.

Please stop using it to defame people, it makes it very hard to use this site in the future as a credible source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Envirina (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I would call someone "anti-car" if they saw lots of non-existent "flaws in the safety of cars that could potentially harm people". So, there is no problem here.

We have reliable sources calling him an anti-vaxxer, and we would not be "a credible source of information" if we omitted that information. Your pharma shill gambit fools no one here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2020

There is misinformation on this page. Mr. Kennedy on his website says plainly he is pro vaccine and has had all 6 of his children vaccinated. Yet, your page states he is anti-vaccine. Having better guidelines improving the safety of vaccines is not anti-vaccine.

Pseudoscience is used to describe Mr. Kennedy's assertion that mercury and thimerosal are linked to autism, despite 89 peer reviewed references supporting this assertion listed on Mr. Kennedy's website. This term Pseudoscience is defamatory unless it is the assertion that 89 peer reviewed articles are authored by pseudoscientists.

These are two discrepancies in accuracy presented for receiving access to edit this page.

Thank you, Dr. Wade Shaffer Konarocky (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam on this page. The answer is no. There is no misinformation on this page whatsoever. RFK Jr.'s self-labeling as being "pro-safe vaccine" does not mean that he is actually for vaccines. It's a common anti-vaxxer trope to not accept the label of being anti-vaccine. But this doesn't make it true. Plenty of reliable sources characterize him as anti-vaccine and it's completely accurate. Mercury and thimerosal are not linked to autism-the evidence is clear on this one and there is scientific consensus on the matter. And yes, in all likelihood the 89 papers you are referring to are junk science or by anti-vaxxers masquerading as legitimate scientists when they're really not. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Pro-vaccine

From primary source, he is pro-vaccine: https://youtube.com/5CfLDXpC324?t=678

Since this article is presently inaccurate, just providing accurate information. Until anti-vaccine is removed, or clarified properly, this article is falsified.

Thanks. G.. (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. He's anti-vaccine through and through. The article is absolutely accurate. Youtube is not a reliable source of information for Wikipedia articles. Thank you for your concern. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, YouTube is not a good source. Me. Kennedy wrote and op-Ed in favor of vaccination. Awhite902 (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

adding Kennedy's stated position

I ask here in good faith for opinions by other editors about the following. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has publicly stated and has been quoted in media repeatedly that he is not anti-vaccine despite being labeled as such. My intention is to add balance to the existing line in the lead section that notes: “He is a prominent anti-vaccine activist and believes in pseudoscientific speculation of a link between vaccines and autism.” I would add - “He has denied the “anti-vaccine” accusation, and argues for “safer immunizations.”

In a Science magazine interview that I would cite as a source for the addition I propose, he concluded by saying, “I am for vaccines. I have been tracking mercury in fish for 30 years and nobody has called me antifish. I am pro-vaccine. I had all my kids vaccinated. I think vaccines save lives. But we are also seeing an explosion in neurodevelopmental disorders and we ought to be able to do a cost-benefit analysis and see what’s causing them. We ought to have robust, transparent science and an independent regulatory agency. Nobody is trying to get rid of vaccines here. I just want safe vaccines.” https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/exclusive-qa-robert-f-kennedy-jr-trumps-proposed-vaccine-commission

Another source I would cite is Kennedy’s letter to The Columbus Dispatch, where he states, “Contrary to these critiques, I have never been anti-vaccine. I have advocated instead against regulatory corruption and in favor of safer immunizations.” https://www.dispatch.com/opinion/20190627/letter-stronger-testing-required-to-make-vaccines-safe

A third source I’d cite would be this third-party conversation about Kennedy, “The truth is Bobby is not an anti-vaxxer. He said so so many times on his website. He’s pro-vaccine. He’s vaccinated all his children. He simply has a belief that the delivery system for the vaccine can be causing harm to our children. For years, you’ve watched this. I’ve watched it. You’re as good a friend to him as I am. Incredible pushback. Incredible attacks on his person, personal attacks on him, both from the CDC and the drug industry, then these buffoons who never take the time to really listen to what the facts are.” https://trofire.com/2017/01/11/mainstream-media-labels-rfk-jr-anti-vaccine-trump-guy/

If necessary, a fourth source I could cite would be the transcripts of his interview on Yahoo Finance, “First of all, you started out by introducing me as anti-vaccine, which I’m not. People say I’m anti-vaccine because they don’t want to have the argument with me about how to improve vaccines. And I’m not anti-vaccine. I’m– I believe we should have safe vaccines, and I believe we should have robust science, and I believe that we should have independent regulators who are not financially tied to the companies that make our vaccines.” https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/rfk-jr-discusses-vaccines-on-yahoo-finances-influencers-with-andy-serwer/ Marker4545 (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources call him anti-vaccine. He disagrees. That is because he has a different definition of "anti-vaccine" than the one reliable sources have. He is definitely spreading false rumors about vaccines, causing people to unnecessarily delay or stop vaccinating, causing unnecessary increase in epidemics. That makes him anti-vaccine. He does not need to say "I am against vaccines" to be anti-vaccine. And if he says "I am pro-vaccine", that does not change it. He is "anti-current-vaccine-with-which-there-is-nothing-wrong" and "pro-fantasy-vaccine-which-does-not-exist-yet-and-is-somehow-different-in-a-not-clearly-defined-way". The only thing that is wrong with the current vaccines is that quacks invent false properties for them, such as "they cause autism", and quacks can keep doing this for every new vaccine. So there is no saying if he will ever accept any really existing vaccine.

If mice call a cat "anti-mice", the cat will say, no, it is really pro-mice and finds them delicious. Nevertheless, the fact is that the cat kills the mice.

There is nothing wrong with adding "He has denied the “anti-vaccine” characterization" ("accusation" is too confrontative), but "argues for “safer immunizations" implies that he has correctly identified issues that make current immunizations "unsafe", which he has not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this. I will add, “He has denied the ‘anti-vaccine’ characterization.” This is also supported by Wikipedia “Biography for living persons” guidelines where it is noted at WP:PUBLICFIGURE that “If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported.”

With regard to “argues for safer immunizations,” I submit that not only has Kennedy publicly stated and has been quoted saying this, but his book, Thimerosal – Let the Science Speak: The Evidence Supporting the Immediate Removal of Mercury—a Known Neurotoxin—from Vaccines (Skyhorse | page xxxi | 2015 | ISBN 9781634504423) speaks exactly to this. In the first paragraph of his Introduction, he writes, “People who advocate for safer vaccines should not be marginalized or denounced as anti-vaccine. I am pro-vaccine. I had all six of my children vaccinated. I believe that vaccines have saved the lives of hundreds of millions of humans over the past century and that broad vaccine coverage is critical to public health. But I want our vaccines to be as safe as possible.”

This to me is not the statement of a “quack.” His call for safer immunizations is loud and clear. I ask the opinions of others editors on this point to also add “argues for safer immunizations.” Marker4545 (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It does not matter how one of his statements sounds to you. It matters how experts judge the totality of his statements.

For example, Thimerosal has not been used in vaccines for years in rich countries that could afford more expensive antiseptics, although there was never any actual evidence that is did anything bad. As another example, there never was any actual evidence that any vaccines cause autism. Kennedy has scared people away from vaccines with unwarranted fears about both.

But I do not think anybody would call him a quack, since he does not apply quackery himself. He is a quackery proponent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Well said, Hob. I agree that it's fine to say "he denies such characterizations" or something to that effect (even though it's a known anti-vaccine proponent trope to deny being an anti-vaxxer and label oneself as "pro-safe vaccine") but I do not agree with adding the bit about his call for safer immunizations. I fully agree with Hob. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that something to the effect of "He has denied the 'anti-vaccine' characterization" along with a supporting direct quote from one of the suggested sources would be appropriate here to maintain NPOV BudJillett (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm shocked by the repeated insistence on this page that he is anti-vaccine. This is an article about a living person, and Wiki rules require extra care in such cases. Just because there is a campaign out there to discredit all who criticise vaccine safety by labelling them anti-vax, doesn't mean that for the purpose of Wikipedia he is. He says he is in favour of vaccination; all the evidence shows that he is; and when he criticises vaccine safety and calls for proper testing he backs what he says with good evidence. That should be enough. If I were him (and he is a lawyer) I would bring legal action against Wikipedia; though of course he has better things to do. I was an early contributor to Wikipedia and am proud to have made a substantial contribution to it, but in the face of so much constant reversion by unyielding political-correctness activists on here I am greatly saddened by it's current state, and less inclined to be bothered. Lindosland (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It has been explained several times on this page why that approach is wrong. Please read those explanations.

This is not "political correctness", it is scientific correctness. Science does actually have criteria on right and wrong, and Kennedy ignores those, so he is scientifically incorrect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Vaccine skeptic or anti-vaccine?

@TylerDurden8823: Hello, the WP:CYCLE continues. I have no strong opinion on this, but my opinion is that it's confusing for readers to call him anti-vaccine if his own children are vaccinated and he's okay with that... certainly, there are levels of vaccine hesitancy, and it seems inaccurate and perhaps not neutral to call him "anti-vaccination". However, due to how this topic is contentious, I'm applying the principle of WP:0RR. Perhaps we should try to figure out which vaccines he opposes so we can figure out the level of his hesitancy, and whether the label is appropriate? Are you aware of such a list? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 02:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 03:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm somewhat new to the topic, but from what little I've read, it seems hesitancy has less to do with specific vaccines, than it does to do with the FDA's testing and vetting measures of vaccines before they're released. Next time I read on the topic, I'll make a note of the RSs for future discussion here, if this issue is still open at that time.

I just checked the main article, and the phrase "believes in pseudoscientific speculation" doesn't make sense. Clearly, he doesn't *believe* in "pseudoscientific speculation" as the wording suggests. Such would be a person who promotes pseudoscientific speculation in general, for its own sake. I don't have time to read the source right now, so maybe someone else can address this. Just reads funny. BudJillett (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

He believes in certain things. Those things are pseudoscientific speculation. So he believes in pseudoscientific speculation. It is not necessarily the best wording, it does read funny, but if what he says is indeed what he believes, it is true. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

He's NOT an anti-vaccination activist (needs correction)

I've just read an 2019-11-23 interview with him (interview - use google translate for an English translation) where he specifically states that he is not an anti-vaccination activist (although he's portrayed as such) and that he has vaccinated his children. His fight is around testing and safety of vaccinations. I'd say the correct description is pro-vaccination-safety.

The relevant excerpt from the interview (translated to English): "I am doing what I am supposed to do: the right thing. I have been struggling for 15 years to require the federal government to require vaccine safety tests, which are the only drug that does not have to pass safety tests. None of our children's 72 vaccines have been tested against the placebo, and if you do not test them you may not know what their risk profile is ... I guess anyone who hears my reservations would agree with me. The problem is that rarely is my position accurately reported. I'm usually called 'anti-vaccine', which is really wrong. I vaccinated all my children. I just want to make sure We do vaccine tests before we vaccinate children and make sure that the vaccine is actually healthier. Who would disagree with that?"

I respectfully and vehemently disagree with characterizing RFK Jr. as merely "pro-vaccination safety". This strikes me as whitewashing. He absolutely has succumbed to and spread anti-vaccination misinformation and tropes. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Several credible sources cited in the article say he's an anti-vaccine activist. His family wrote an op-ed to say he's an anti-vaccine activist. He's the head of an anti-vaccine group and the executive producer of an anti-vaccine film. I understand he would prefer to call that "vaccine safety", but I suggest we stick with the sources, as we usually do.Robincantin (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• He's not anti-vaccination in the same way that David Duke is not racist because he has that one black friend. Guy (help!) 23:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-vaxx-movement-civil-war-has-erupted-and-its-just-as-ridiculous-as-youd-expect

Update there is an allegation of a lawsuit in 2020 between Shiva Ayyadurai and RFK Jr. over political gain and who gets the anti-vax vote though. 2601:640:C600:3C20:82:8BEE:1F53:761A (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep - he's PRO-SAFE vaccine. This is the real issue. He makes it very clear in many interviews. This is just a typical example of wikipedia bias that we see again and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.230.142 (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Since he is a complete science noob, falls for the stupidest pseudoscientific frauds, and therefore cannot tell the difference between a safe vaccine and an unsafe one, he calls safe vaccines unsafe all the time. So, he is effectively anti-vaccine. It does not matter whether that is his intention. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

89, that's the oldest anti-vaccine trope in the book, to label oneself not as an antivaxxer but as "pro-safe vaccine" since that has a nicer ring to it. Yes, we are proudly biased toward reality. On the other hand, you seem to be succumbing to more problematic biases, such as confirmation bias. How RFK Jr. characterizes himself is not the most important thing here. It's more important how the experts describe his harmful rhetoric. Many anti-vaccine proponents reject the label of being "anti-vaccine", but they still are even though they refuse to acknowledge that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Anti-vaccine means exactly that, against vaccines completely, but it gives a worse ring to it than "vaccine hesitance" doesn't it? Your "credible sources" can't really say he's anti-vaccine so instead change dictionary definitions to mean "vaccine hesitance", to fit the narrative. It's incredibly disingenuous and you are happy to go along with it. By your own standards you're anti-objective because you're not precise, you're manipulating information by using opinions of "credible sources" and playing with words. Yet wikipedia refuses to acknowledge that. This is why not many people take wikipedia seriously anymore, you're not clear or precise. Unit73e (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

[1] calls him an anti-vaxxer, and [2] does so too. But your own private definition of "anti-vaccine" is irrelevant anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying [3] is a fake dictionary? Is it also their private definition? Wikipedia changed what anti-vaccine means with unclear wording. Even the title of your own "anti-vaccine" page is not "anti-vaccine", it's "vaccine hesitancy". You're not even consistent, you're lying to yourselves. Even your own source to justify anti-vaccine actually being "vaccine hesitance" clearly distinguishes one from the other with the title "It's the 'vaccine hesitant', not anti-vaxxers, who are troubling public health experts". Also CBC and Slate are not reliable scientific sources of information and one of the posts you sent clearly states "Opinion", so you're using opinion as if it's fact. They've probably done that so they're not sued like many news channels have been recently. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. does have ideas about vaccines that are not agreed in the science community but what you're doing is not objective, you're anti-objective by your own standards. Don't worry, that redirects to the "objectiveness hesitancy" page. Unit73e (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Your Merriam-Webster link says: A handful of parents and anti-vaccine activists told lawmakers on the House Health and Human Services Committee that they believe vaccines are responsible for countless cases of autism, learning disabilities and death.

This sentence exactly describes Kennedy's beiefs. The definition says opposed to the use of vaccines and not, as you claim, against vaccines completely, so, if anybody is lying, it is you. Kennedy opposes vaccines because of his scientific illiteracy, and that is what the term "anti-vaccine" means. He does not need to oppose all vaccines for the term to be applicable.

Regarding "vaccine hesitance": that is the general term and including its extreme case "anti-vaccine". It's similar to "moist" and "wet": just different intensities of the same thing.

About "inconsistency": We say what reliable sources say. We cannot distort that in order to have the same wording everywhere, that would be WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Opposing and being against are synonymous, it's the exact same thing and means completely against, not just somewhat, and that's why you have the expert distinguishing hesitant from anti-vaccine (from your own source). Your example from Meriam doesn't conclude anything about what anti-vaccine means, it's just a justification. You aren't even consistent in your own logic, you are distinguishing "vaccine hesitance" with "anti-vaccine", and confirming that the later is the extreme case. How can you keep pretending that's okay baffles me. Nobody thinks "moist" and "wet" are the same thing and even if people did Wikipedia an Encyclopedia, not a story book. You're supposed to be precise, and yet you're not. But okay, keep pretending these are "reliable sources" when even themselves say it's not fact, it's opinion. You're still anti-objective, which includes being hesitant in being objective. You know "moist" vs "wet", same thing. Unit73e (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Opposing and being against are synonymous Duh. That is not my point, my point is that you pulled the word "completely" out of your ass and pretended it came from Webster.

Read WP:IDHT, then read again what I wrote, and this time, listen to it. Especially the "We say what reliable sources say" part and the part after it. Reliable sources call him that. End of story. Good bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Update Robert F Kennedy has been banned from instagram for Anti-vax rants. https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/10/tech/robert-kennedy-jr-instagram-ban/index.html2601:640:C600:3C20:F884:16F1:3AA2:3403 (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Vieques

Please cite sources that are both verifiable and reliable before adding this passage back into the article. A claim like that, if accurate, should be easy to source to a major newspaper but I'm afraid the blog of an environmental writer does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion at biographies of living persons. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Vieques

I used the blog link journalist Dick Russell's blog link first and then I provided a link to the same article in E magazine where it appeared. I will not change the wording of the paragraph as it now appears. However the situation was more complex. When the U.S. military left Culebra and Vieques the main beneficiaries were wealthy speculators and squatters from San Juan and the United States. The original islanders did not regain farms lost to emminent domain at the time the base was established. There were many Viequans and Eastern Puerto Ricans whose livelyhood depended on the military. As a result some of the people felt ambivalent and the withdrawl might have been done over a longer course of time. The portion of the island involved was not small. The United Stats military had three quarters of the island of Vieques cordoned off around their ammo dump on one end of the island and the bombing range on the other. My father was a deacon in the Episcopal Church on St. Croix whose duty was reading a sermon to congregants from the Viequan community there every other Sunday. The St. Croix Viequan Community was the largest, larger even than Puerto Rico. RichardBond (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

While I am well aware that the situation of the natives on Vieques is complex, this article is not the place to go into it. This article is about RFK jr., there are many other Vieques related articles that cover the subject of the island in more depth. Please see Vieques, Puerto Rico, Navy-Vieques_protests, United States Navy in Vieques, Puerto Rico, Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, et al. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Speech Impediment?

When you listen to him speak it's quite obvioious that he has some sort of speech impediment.

I was doing a Google search trying to find some information on the subject and was surprised there was no mention of it in this article.

If anyone out there has more information, would you please update this article?

Thank you. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy has Spasmodic dysphonia, it is mentioned in the article and has been since, at least, 2006. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Pro life

Why in almost every Democratic politician article is no mention of pro life positions, but always of pro choice? pro life RFK, Jr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.223.170 (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhh. Kennedy's position on abortion (pro-life) is in the article and has been for a couple years now. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Criminal record section ??

This section makes NO sense; it combines two completely unrelated events. Why not combine the drug offense with the Riverkeeper section, and mention the protest offense somewhere else. The key is that protesting isn't just a criminal act, since it is part of some larger idea.74.72.200.28 (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The section makes perfect sense, it is a mention of Kennedy's criminal convictions. The reason he committed his crimes is largely non-germane to this section, a conviction is a conviction, a criminal record is a criminal record. Why would you want to split the section into little tidbits all over the article? Do you not want people to know that Kennedy is a convict? L0b0t (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think that in a biography, as opposed to say a governmental dossier, the context of any part of a person's life is quite germane to the article. That is, after all, the entire purpose of writing a biography. The question is whether a section listing all convictions in one place, versus inserting them into the proper chronological sequence, makes for a better biography or worse one. I generally prefer chronological ordering for all biographies, unless there's some compelling reason to split out "thematic" sections, like with sections discussing a philosopher's works. In this case I don't see a particularly compelling reason to split them out, and it makes the article read like it was written by someone who, rather than trying to write an article useful for readers, is pushing a political agenda of "want[ing] people to know that Kennedy is a convict". --Delirium (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur entirely with the commenter of 2 Nov 2008, on the rather strange choice of putting a civil disobedience conviction together with the heroine possession.

There is a second, glaring anti-RFK Jr POV here in that the section is not even called "Convictions" but rather "Criminal Record". Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi and others were arrested too, and while the judge has the right to decide to convict, as was the case here, no one would put that under a "convictions" section but under civil disobedience.

Yes, true, in the two cases cited there was apparently not conviction; it's easy to find cases where there were convictions, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chee_Soon_Juan for going against the rules of the state in deliberate defiance for civil disobedience, and of course in their Wikipedia entry there is no "Convictions" section much less a more extreme "Criminal Record" section for Chee Soon Juan.

Speaking of Puerto Rico, here's another example of civil disobedience with conviction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Berrios and of course here again the wikipedia article follows sane policy and does not have any "criminal record" section, rather instead "1.1 Civil disobedience" despite, "With the continuation of bombing practices by the U.S. Navy, Berríos announced his intention to enter to the restricted grounds for a third time. He stayed for five (5) days in the target practice area, before being arrested violently and forced to lay on an extremely hot gravel road for an extended period of time after being handcuffed with his hands to his back with the other PIP members that accompanied him at the U.S. Navy bombing range. This time, convicted for the fourth time..."

Clearly some pretty strong anti-RFK Jr bias is present in the current wording of the entry, one not fitting for Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. These editors of wikipedia make you wonder whether they would have put a "Criminal record" section for some of the leaders of past era's civil disobedience had wikipedia been around. If the answer is "no", these are clearly inconsistent; if the answer is "yes" they are clearly outside of the mainstream consensus that an unbiased encyclopedia entry for civil disobedience does not fall under "criminal record" Neither of these two possibilities is flattering. --131.118.49.86 (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what is remarkable about this section is the lack of background information regarding the heroin conviction. As I recall, he appeared to have OD'ed after injecting himself in the airplane bathroom, and was arrested after heroin was found in his luggage. I also recall that this happened while he was an assistant DA in NY, and thus he was a heroin user while he was a prosecutor. It wasn't a youthful indiscretion - he was in his late 20s. Anyone who thinks RFK Jr. has a political future needs to be aware of this incident. The discussion in this page is cursory, but it had a very major impact on his career (and continues to have an impact).

Problem Solved66.193.107.129 (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is Kennedy has a criminal record and clearly pointing out that fact via a separate section (given his repeated convictions) is no mored biased than pointing out that his uncle, in an entry on Ted Kennedy, left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown. The assertion that the term "Criminal record" is somehow biased is absurd. Also, the notion that there needs to be a "Civil Disobedience" section, as if Kennedy is a 90s version of Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi is absolutely laughable. Moreover, his conviction for heroin possession further necessitates a section detailing his criminal past, unless of course you are trying to claim that he was using and transporting heroin in an effort to protest US drug laws. The other cases mentioned in support of a Civil Disobedience section are irrelevant, unless those individuals mentioned also have previous convictions for crimes unrelated to so-called "civil disobedience". By the way, going out of your way to mention that someone had to lay on an "extremely hot gravel road" is absolutely hilarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Marriages

First marriage ended in divorce March 25, 1994. Second marriage took place April 15, 1994. That's a 21-day interval, which seems hasty from a sociological point of view. Musicwriter (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC) So are you saying the article should comment from that point of view? I think that's not very relevant. Jack Waugh (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC) There should be something on Mary Richardsons sudden death. FotoPhest (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's there if you have additional relevant details you can add them.Tomsv 98 (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Expunged Record

The first item under criminal record says "After the court was satisfied with Kennedy's compliance with the sentence, it ordered that Kennedy's record regarding the offense was to be sealed and expunged." I understand that when someone's record is "expunged", that should mean that the record, ideally, should not come up in response to any search. So wouldn't the ethical thing be to also expunge the record regarding that offense from the article? Jack Waugh (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question. I moved the Vieques protest arrest to activism which is what it was - having a section called "criminal record" is POV. The other arrest is now in Personal life, but I also question it on BLP grounds - if the record was expunged, should we include it? Tvoz/talk 23:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

His drug arrest and conviction are a matter of public record, and that cannot be expunged. It could be argued that they are given insufficient weight in this article, because at the time he was a heroin user he was also an assistant DA in Morgenthau's office in New York - although I recall from that time that he had been unable to pass the bar exam. He is a public figure, and his character is therefore a matter of legitimate public interest. His dependence on heroin, even as he occupied a position of great responsibility, is an important insight into his character.Davidiank (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about this and agree that although this was expunged, it is a matter of record and therefore statements of fact about it are likely not a BLP violation. But we need to proceed carefully and not go beyond what is reported in reliable sources: speculation about his character almost 30 years ago sounds like OR to me, and could well be a BLP problem. Tvoz/talk 07:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not speculate on his character: I merely pointed out that certain facts of his life are a matter of public record, and that they may provide insight into his character. And on the Talk page at that, not in the article! My primary point is that the drug arrest and conviction are a matter of public record, as is his coeval employment as an assistant DA. He is a public figure: these events are part of his life. I believe that an arrest and conviction for heroin possession, while an individual is employed as a prosecutor, is a significant event in that person's life. And if there is any possibility at all that the individual might run for public office, that event is particularly significant because it is going to come up in a campaign. I remember very clearly that his arrest was a sensation at the time, and all of those newspaper stories are still in the archives. Any attempt to leave that out of his life story runs the risk of looking NPOV.Davidiank (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit of Lead paragraph - Jan 2015

This article has been tagged with a Wiki notation (Oct 2014) that the lead paragraph needed to be extended to be inclusive of more information included in the body of the article. I have edited the lead paragraph in an effort to address that issue and have removed the tag. Feel free to improve upon my efforts. Cheers. Mdukas (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080206085547/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5iuypM0fHL7WjvFC5zvGCFLGb53CQD8UHQJHO1 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iuypM0fHL7WjvFC5zvGCFLGb53CQD8UHQJHO1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Salon retraction

Asserting material should remain that suggests scientific fraud underlies the subject's claims is a gross WP:BLP violation, as is falsely portraying it as being based on new criticisms when it is not. The removal of any response from the subject or criticism by Salon.com's founder is based on a misinterpretation of WP:RS and further underlies the WP:BLP issues inherent to this section. Realskeptic (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Another of his articles on Middle East, from this year

This article has some overlap with the article currently cited, but I think this one is arguably better and more comprehensive and has more to cull: "Syria: Another Pipeline War". -- Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

new edit

@Giraffe46: I reverted your edit because it appeared to be be promoting Kennedy environmental activism in violation of WP:NPOV, also I think you may have relied too much on primary sources, but I was on the fence about weather to fully revert or just change the wording , so I am open to any suggestions about improving the article. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Allegedly

"The article allegedly contained five minor factual errors"

"Kennedy argued that the errors were insignificant and that some were made by Salon during the editing process"

Even Kennedy admits the factual errors are there. So why does the article only "allegedly" contain them? I will remove the word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph should also say that there is no evidence of any connection between vaccines and autism. Such a connection was suggested by a paper the results of which nobody could ever reproduce, and which has been known to be fraudulent for quite a few years now (see Andrew Wakefield). The scientific community widely views Kennedy's opinion as not based on facts but on conspiracy theories. The article should say so; it is a case very similar to the anti-science shenanigans of other politicians such as the climate change deniers Lamar S. Smith and James Inhofe and should be handled the same way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Ethyl Mercury “safer” or “much safer” than Methyl Mercury

The article stated that ethylmercury is “much safer” than methyl mercury. The cited fda webpage does not solidly support that statement, But it does solidly support the statement that ethyl mercury is “safer” than methyl mercury, so I have removed the word “much.” JustinReilly (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Views on autism and vaccines

I have opened a discussion in WP:FTN regarding the above section. - Location (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

In regard to the "sources" utilized for this article, some of them are less than reputable. For instance, collective-evolution.com, environews.tv, and people.com, just to name a few. With the exception of People, these other two were used in multiple supportive instances, as were other questionable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmg999 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/13/majority-antivaxx-vaccine-ads-facebook-funded-by-two-organizations-study

Here is a new one RFK Jr. Got called out for producing political ads over vaccines on facebook in a 2019 Guardian article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.71.164.202 (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Added a bunch of good sources to key statements in that section, added text for context. Robincantin (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 Aug 2020: "anti-unsafe"

Not sure why I'm not autoconfirmed, but could someone please do something about the phrase "anti-unsafe vaccine activist" in the intro? I recognize that this is not the place to wade into the horrors of vaccine politics or loaded words like anti-vaxxer, but that phrase is an indefensible case of dividing the baby in half to avoid the argument. Is there anyone who is pro-unsafe vaccines? The salient point isn't whether he's pro or con, it's his claims about the safety of vaccines.

If it's untenable to claim that he agrees with the fundamental assumptions of the political movement he's one of the leaders of, then phrase it in a way that at least addresses the key issue: perhaps replace "He is a prominent anti-unsafe vaccine activist" with "He is an activist who claims that many routinely administered vaccines are unsafe"?

I think his position is dangerous and demonstrably false, but we should at least acknowledge what his actually demonstrated position is—despite claims made when confronted—and that it is a controversial one. That's sufficient for the introduction, especially if the evidence that he's culpable in the deaths of multiple children is addressed in a body section.

aja (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

​This was something changed yesterday, have reverted as this wording has been challanged before. You should also be autoconfirmed now, at least that's what your user-rights page says. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Voice?

Why isn't there any reference in this article to why his voice is funny? I hope this is taken as an honest question -- I don't know why he sounds like he does and I'm curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.32.75 (talk)

The article covers this. He suffers from Spasmodic dysphonia. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too on a recent radio outtake (2014). It may have been that fancy dysphonia thing, but it sounded exactly like Parkinson's to me. 38.115.185.4 (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)HelenChicago

That's exactly why I'm here! I just saw him in a commercial for his law firm, which has a class action suit going against Monsanto for Roundup weed killer causing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, & was asking people to call & be included in the suit.. I wondered why his voice sounded so "off". Figured he had to have some odd medical condition. Which he does, because spasmodic dysphonia is fairly rare to begin with, & it's more common in women than in men. This article has a single sentence at the very end ID'ing his condition, so it doesn't really "cover it" unless you A) read all the way to the end B) actually notice it & C) click thru to the Wikipedia pg re the issue. ScarletRibbons (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Requesting an edit so that the health section reads that he "has spasmodic dysphonia." The Disability Language Style Guide advises journalists to avoid terms like "suffers from/afflicted with" as "These terms carry the assumption that a person with a disability is suffering or has a reduced quality of life. Not every person with a disability suffers, is a victim or is stricken." NCDJ Recommendation: "It is preferable to use neutral language when describing a person who has a disability, simply stating the facts about the nature of the disability. For example: “He has muscular dystrophy” or “he is living with muscular dystrophy” and avoiding characterizing those conditions as afflictions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chmchm88 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Ring of Fire Radio Show

It looks like Kennedy is no longer associated with the radio show, but I cannot find any coverage of this separation. An anon removed him from the list of hosts on the other page, but not from the infobox: [4]. We still list him as a host here, but no one seems to be talking about it. Anyone able to dig up what happened and update this and Ring of Fire (radio program)

jps (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see his name listed on the Ring of Fire website under the "Our Hosts" drop down. https://trofire.com/Writethisway (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Addition to section on political endorsements

In the section on political endorsements, there was this paragraph:

"Kennedy has been critical of the integrity of the voting process. In June 2006, he published an article in Rolling Stone purporting to show that GOP operatives stole the 2004 presidential election for President George W. Bush. Farhad Manjoo countered Kennedy's conclusions,[210] but there were other people who argued otherwise.[211]"

The definitive investigation of the stealing of the 2004 presidential election by the Republicans is Witness to A Crime: A Citizens' Audit of An American Election (Phillips, Richard Hayes, Ph.D.; Canterbury Press, Rome, NY 2008). Witness to A Crime not only shows the results of Phillips' research, but includes a DVD with more than 1200 ballot images, which allows the readers to see the primary source information for themselves! In fact, Mr. Kennedy was uncooperative with Dr. Phillips, who in 2004 went before the Ohio Supreme Judicial Court in an attempt to have the ballots in Ohio set aside before the December electoral college vote until the issues he and his team of researchers had uncovered were resolved. The Court refused to take action.

160.3.239.220 (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

Correct the STAT journalist's name: Helen Branwell -> Helen Branswell 67.133.167.10 (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

President Waterkeeper Alliance

I cannot change that, so someone might do that for me. It seems like he is not president of the Waterkeeper Alliance anymore. At the Wikipedia page of the Waterkeeper Alliance is written that the president is Gloria Yaggi. On their website one can read that he resigned last year. Tim Henri Brünnel (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

Robert F. Kennedy is an advocate for informed consent. He has spent years fighting for the rights of vaccine injured children. He is not a conspiracy theorist. He wins lawsuits with scientific facts. 184.98.150.172 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

The first sentence summarizing RFK, JR. is not accurate. "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American anti-vaccine advocate, conspiracy theorist, author, and environmental lawyer. He is the chairman of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group. He is the son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of John F. Kennedy. He is also the president of the board of Waterkeeper Alliance, a non-profit environmental group that he helped found in 1999."

Should be changed to:

"Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an environmental lawyer and the chairman of Children's Health Defense. He is the son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of John F. Kennedy. He is also the president of the board of Waterkeeper Alliance, a non-profit environmental group that he helped found in 1999."

This sentence should also be removed: "He is an anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist and promotes the scientifically-debunked link between vaccines and autism.[4][5]"

He is not a conspiracy theorist. He's spent thousands of hours reviewing scientific studies. And the link was not debunked. It was confirmed by the CDC's own study. William Thompson, the top vaccine scientist at the CDC, has come forward and said he and others were ordered to destroy evidence that showed a much higher rate of autism among black boys who'd received the MMR vaccine at 18 months verses 4 years of age. You can find the audio interviews with Mr. Thompson online.

Please correct so that this page does not libel Mr. Kennedy, but accurately describes his work. Shashabol (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If you lack basic understanding of science, you can "review scientific studies" until the cows come home and it will be to no avail. And the CDC whistleblower story is a fairy tale. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh right: William Thompson is not a "vaccine scientist" at all, let alone "the top" one, he is a psychologist. If you cannot even get things like this right, you are not qualified to say anything about this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

RFK Jr named as one of the parties for Vaccine Disinformation

https://kion546.com/video-2/2021/07/16/surgeon-general-issues-warning-over-vaccine-misinformation-as-white-house-turns-up-the-heat-on-facebook-2/

RFK Jr. was called out in a White House Press Conference over anti-vax rants2601:640:C681:C260:F836:8269:19DE:2666 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal life: "Controversies" section

I realize that much of Kennedy's life and career has involved controversy, as is well discussed throughout. But it seems like trivial mud slinging to add a devoted Controversies subheading to #Personal life, which includes verifiable information of dubious relevance. See WP:PROPORTION: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." See also WP:STRUCTURE and the essay WP:CRITS.

• First, we are informed that in 1970 he was arrested for marijuana (at age 16), and at age 17 pleaded no contest to a charge of loitering (The New York Times notes he paid a whopping $50 fine for the latter crime). Is this encyclopedic? They aren't even "controversies," they're just mundane facts. They certainly pale in comparison to his adult arrests during environmental and military protests. Should we scour police blotters for juvenile jaywalking and speeding tickets as well?
• The next personal "controversy" goes into undue detail about his 1983 arrest, even giving trivia like the name of the presiding judge. If it must be included, the incident could be condensed without losing significant information to something like "In 1983, Kennedy pled guilty to heroin possession and was sentenced to two years' probation and community service. Following his arrest he entered a drug treatment center and left employment as a government prosecutor during his probation volunteered for the Natural Resources Defense Council. His probation ended a year early."[5] Exact dates, locations, names of civil servants, and number of hours are non-essential to the article (this is a good writing guideline, not necessarily a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline). "left employment as a government prosecutor" may be implied, but doesn't seem to be directly supported by the accompanying sources. A more informative change would be to move the whole affair to early #Career or the end of #Early life and education, as it thematically joins early life and professional career, concluding with his 1985 admission to the New York State bar.
• The third "controversy" is not personal but rather business: the hiring, firing and re-hiring of a Riverkeeper employee. This may marginally qualify as a minor controversy due to some board members resigning, but if the affair must be included, it could reasonably be condensed, and should be relocated and incorporated into #Riverkeeper, or omitted entirely, rather than tacked onto a laundry list of "controversies". --Animalparty! (talk)

Agree completely. Remove irrelevant trivia as suggested. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Done, with this edit. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021

Occupation: Author and Environmental Lawyer. "Anti-vaxxer, Conspiracy Theorist" is an opinion, not fact. He's spent years trying to get mercury out of fish, but he's not coined as Anti-fish. He just wants "safe" vaccines. Andreas-sapolski (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is clearly going to need consensus to remove. See discussion above and in archives. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography

Hello. I think the ISBN number of the book The real Anthony Fauci is false. The correct ISBN-number must be: ISBN 9781510766808. Look here: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808 Do you agree? --Flip der Grashüpfer (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Julius Senegal. --Flip der Grashüpfer (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccine coercion

“ In May 2021, Kennedy and Paul Kempin, president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons publicly denounced the more than 100 colleges requiring COVID-19 vaccinations prior to returning to campus in the fall of 2021. ”

@Julius Senegal: reverted the above edit, with the tag note: "nothing to do with that article". Can anyone else make sense of his or her rationale for reverting? The article in question mentions Kennedy and it mentions the AAPS and it mentions Kempen. It would seem to be fair game for inclusion on Kennedy's page. Or am I missing something? Fitzrex (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fitzrex:I support the reversion. Not every article or event that mentions Kennedy warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. See WP:VNOTSUFF, WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be bulletin boards or running logs of every new event that occurs. Relatively trivial events shouldn't be included at all, and using news articles that merely report what happened today or yesterday may be inaccurate and unreliable (WP:RSBREAKING), and leave unanswered the "so what?". What is somewhat conflated, or not readily distinguished, from the cited source is that Kempin of the AAPS published this open letter to colleges, while Kennedy (with the CHD) penned a different letter. In either case, did it lead to any major changes or actions? Have other sources considered any letter particularly noteworthy in regards to the entirety of Kennedy's biography? Or was it simply a routine action which some sources reported as news-of-the-day and then forgot? And, assuming the material was deemed significant enough to go in an encyclopedia, it doesn't necessarily warrant its own paragraph, let alone a devoted section header, which can lend undue weight to particular issues, and drags down the overall article quality (see WP:PROSELINE and MOS:PARA: "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading"). Lastly, by using the term "COVID-19 vaccine coercion" in your edit and on this talk page, people might get the impression you are stating Kennedy and colleagues are doing the coercing. Per the source, the AAPS letter (not Kennedy's) accuses colleges of coercing students via their policy of requiring vaccinations in order to return to class. Kennedy's mentions coercion obliquely in reference to the Nuremberg code. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

:: @Animalparty: I doubt "people might get the impression you are stating Kennedy and colleagues are doing the coercing" because they are not in positions of authority. Would you prefer "Anti-coercion activities" as section head? ... The curious thing is that I copied that text over from Children's Health Defence. Why did you not object to the text over there? Perhaps you should object to its initial author, not me... The recentism complaint (to pick just one) seems to fail for the simple reason that the article was written in May; it is now late July... The involvement of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons makes it noteworthy, do you not think? Both for the reason that a group of doctors sought Kennedy out and not, say, Alan Dershowitz, and for the reason that the group was a *medical doctor* group, not librarians, not restaurateurs, not an LGBTQ group, not the NAACP, who sought to avert COVID-19 coercion through Kennedy's legal services. Fitzrex (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The content at Children's Health Defense is equally out of place and lacking context for all the same reasons described here. Undue emphasis need not be limited to the last few months (Recentism is just one of many types of imbalanced writing: please read all the guidelines I've linked above comment, don't just pick one to complain about). You'll note right above that I objected to irrelevant trivia from the 1970s too. No, I don't think the AAPS "involvement" makes it noteworthy: again, Kempin (not Kennedy) wrote the open letter to colleges, while Kennedy (not affiliated with the AAPS) separately wrote a different form letter than students or parents can send to their schools. I don't even know if there is a formal link between Kennedy and the AAPS. Find a source that says AAPS "sought Kennedy out." --Animalparty! (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Paul Kempin and the AAPS should not have been mentioned at all ... they indeed have nothing to do with the article--meaning the WP article that this talk page is about, not the citation. "a group of doctors sought Kennedy out ... through Kennedy's legal services" -- the citation doesn't say anything of the sort. (It's badly written, but that doesn't oblige us to badly read it.) And "why did you not object to this other thing" is not a valid question--editors don't see everything, and they have no obligation to respond to everything, and certainly no obligation to explain why they didn't (WP:AGF). As for "Perhaps you should object to its initial author, not me", you're the one who asked why something was reverted; no one is objecting to you, just trying to answer your question. -- Jibal (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

OP was a sock so I've struck through their edits. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Magnovvig/Archive. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not anti-vax

He’s anti “no-placebo” vaccine studies. Read where CDC and NIH get their money and under what conditions WHO gives funding to 3rd world countries. 2600:4040:4019:9000:84DC:7C56:5888:A956 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Check the archives of this Talk page for a response to this. The "not anti-vax" claim has been addressed several times. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Then RFK Jr. should be in favor of COVID vaccines and a number of others that were studied in placebo-controlled trials. ScienceFlyer (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Publication date

Kennedy's book The Real Anthony Fauci is to be published in November 2021, not September. See Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.244.170.50 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The book was published by Skyhorse publishing on November 16, 2021, according to the Simon and Schuster product page. See https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808 Furthermore, if Amazon isn't a reliable source, then why is Google Books reliable, since it mentions the correct publishing date? (ref 219) What is the relevance of the Business Insider article written on July 26, 2021, since it only mentions the book in passing, and is not a review of the book, just a "hit job" on the author. (ref 220) But then the Wikipedia section on the book is biased and hostile to the author and the publisher. Donn Edwards (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Who said Google Books is reliable? Go on and delete the source if you like.

The article says he made false claims about Fauci. That is correct, according to reliable sources. What is your problem? You want that fact hidden? --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Short description

Per WP:HOWTOSD the short description should be no more than 40 characters. The editorial words "environmental" and "anti-vaccine" push the count beyond the desired 40. Besides, his legal work and activism goes beyond the environment and vaccinations. These terms go beyond the purpose of the SD, which is to give the reader a glimpse of what the article is about. Besides, they lapse into the forbidden "controversial or judgemental" zone. – S. Rich (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2021

Suggest changing "the group focused on the perceived issue of mercury in industry and medicine" to simply "the group focused on the issue of mercury in industry and medicine". 'Perceived' implies that there is no established issue with mercury and it's interaction with biological life, this is simply not accurate, even if the mercury in vaccines is ethylmercury, it is just commonly agreed that ethylmercury is not as bad as methylmercury, that doesn't make it a non-issue. Ethylmercury has stated negative effects on biology in wikipedia's own article on ethylmercury as well as this pubmed article (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23401210/) and many more sources. Shrike 23 (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2021

CITATION NEEDED ON REFERENCE THE STATEMENT THAT PERSON IS ALIGNED TO ANTI VACCINE HESITANCY — This is a subjective statement and requires review unless specifically noted by the person referenced. 2605:A601:A0C2:1C00:FC14:F3F4:4C9B:9DE2 (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

unofficial poll

Support including “Conspiracy theorist” in lede and/or info box. There are ample BLPs with “conspiracy theorist” listed prominently in their associated articles. Obviously there is no policy or guideline against doing so here and should be done provided the reliable sources confirm that RFK Jr is a conspiracy theorist. And from a brief examination of the current sources in the article it is abundantly clear that this is the case. --Artificial Nagger (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I am obviously against "conspiracy theorist" listed as an occupation, or in the lede, or info box. With that noted, I don't see why a Section titled "Conspiracy Theories" wouldn't scratch your itch. He does support some conspiracy theories. But labeling it as an occupation makes WP look silly; it is opinion, not encyclopedic. I have the same concern regarding any other BLPs using the term similarly. Quietcat22 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

If the sources call someone a conspiracy theorist, then for Wikipedia’s purposes it is factual. Hell, checkout [Category:American conspiracy theorists] to see how often it’s used--Artificial Nagger (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Factual or not, it doesn't make "Conspiracy Theorist" an occupation. Quietcat22 (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You’re hung up on “occupation” for some reason. It’s simply a description of what someone is notable for. There’s no specific requirement to even have that descriptor. Artificial Nagger (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Editorial comment should be deleted or reframed

"Since 2005, he has promoted the scientifically discredited idea that vaccines cause autism,[4] and is founder and chairman of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group.[5]

Good article -- however the awkward "scientifically discredited" comment is an opinion. The Scientific American article it references is an opinion piece. The autism connection remains a possibility, however slight.

As an alternative, the author could find and quote any news pieces that confirm there is some named authority making the "scientifically discredit" proclamation. That would serve the author's need to discredit Kennedy's idea. Inappropriate as that is.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleentruelsen (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not an opinion, it is the scientific consensus. Read MMR vaccine and autism, Andrew Wakefield, Lancet MMR autism fraud, and the reliable sources quoted there. Whatever the place is where you got the misguided opinion that it is an opinion, it is an unreliable source. Avoid that source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation.

I would suggest removing conspiracy theorist and anti vaccine. He is not anti vaccine, he is raising valid concerns regarding the current covid 19 vaccine that is not anti vaccine. Anti vaccine is someone who rejects all vaccines! Also a conspiracy theorist? Have some respect and integrity please. He is using his right to free speech and raising valid reasonable concerns. 109.76.25.31 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Just give us one or two Reliable sources to back up those “valid reasonable concerns” and we’re good to go. Otherwise, it’s just your opinion. KJP1 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he's definitely a conspiracy theorist. I would strongly recommend keeping the descriptors anti-vaccine and conspiracy theorist. They're accurate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2022

Robert F. Kennedy is not a conspiracy theorist or anti vaccine because of his disagreement of the current pandemic. I believe stating that he is on a public platform is slander. We have a freedom of speech in the United States. 75.174.8.147 (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. SpinningCeres 00:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

He's definitely a conspiracy theorist and not just because of his position on COVID-19. It is not slanderous. We reflect what the highest quality sources say and several of them accurately characterize him as a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaccine. Thank you for your suggesiton but the answer is no. This terminology will remain. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2022

Remove that he’s an anti vaxxer and conspiracy theorist. These are opinions not facts. 2603:8081:8401:E500:2D3C:2CCD:BEC4:4FE9 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This has been requested before and the answer is still no. These are accurate descriptors. Thank you for your suggestion. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022

I am the Assistant Dean for External Affairs at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. Robert Kennedy Jr is being incorrectly listed as a professor oh his page which is incorrect as he resigned in August 2017 and does not have professor Emeritus status. Can this statement be corrected? It is causing a lot of problems with the media because he no longer has any affiliation to us and this page is providing mis-information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.

CURRENT - INCORRECT: For over thirty years, Kennedy has been an adjunct professor of Environmental law at Pace University School of Law. Until August 2017, he also held the post as supervising attorney and co-director of Pace Law School's Environmental Litigation Clinic, which he founded in 1987. He is currently professor emeritus at Pace.

CORRECT: For over thirty years, Kennedy was an adjunct professor of Environmental law at Pace University School of Law. Until August 2017, he held the post as supervising attorney and co-director of Pace Law School's Environmental Litigation Clinic, which he founded in 1987.

(remove the last line about professor emeritus status) Rachaelsilva16 (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done ––FormalDude talk 15:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Anaphylaxis peanut allergy

Hi,

I'm totally new to this, but the "anaphylaxis peanut allergy" in the allergy section does not seem grammatically correct. I believe a more appropriate way to say it would be "peanut-inducing anaphylaxis."

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigETrain (talk • contribs) 05:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. ––FormalDude talk 15:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Biased and Substandard

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article has strong indications of editorial bias. For example, in the Personal Opinions section, the article states:

"Similar to many who share his beliefs, Kennedy has claimed that he is not against vaccines but wishes that they be more thoroughly tested and investigated, a tactic of fear, uncertainty, and doubt as vaccines have been subject to clinical trials, extensive use, and peer-reviewed analysis with low incidence of severe side effects."

Why does the article need to disparage his personal beliefs as a "tactic" of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt)? That doesn't even make sense. The section purports to describe his personal opinions, but can't do so without twisting them into something else? Why not accept that he genuinely believes, as he states, that vaccines should be more thoroughly tested and investigated?

Medical science accepts that vaccines are generally very safe, but not absolutely and infallibly safe. Vaccine science is not at an endpoint where no further safety improvements can ever be made. Rather, it is subject to new discoveries and improvements, potentially including better safety and lesser side effects. As a result, it is perfectly reasonable for a person to hold the personal belief that vaccines should be more thoroughly tested and investigated. It is perfectly reasonable for Kennedy, or any a person, to hold the belief that if a small percentage of people are harmed by vaccines, then vaccines should indeed be made safer via more thorough testing and investigation. Improved safety is a valid human and scientific goal. A person shouldn't be shamed and besmirched for seeking better safety.

The article cites a 2017 interview in Science wherein Robert F. Kennedy Jr. states:

"I am for vaccines. I have been tracking mercury in fish for 30 years and nobody has called me antifish. I am pro-vaccine. I had all my kids vaccinated. I think vaccines save lives. But we are also seeing an explosion in neurodevelopmental disorders and we ought to be able to do a cost-benefit analysis and see what's causing them. We ought to have robust, transparent science and an independent regulatory agency. Nobody is trying to get rid of vaccines here. I just want safe vaccines."

So it should be perfectly clear that Kennedy is not against vaccines, as he had his own children vaccinated, and as his goal is objectively better science and better safety. The article should not engage in the atrocious editorializing of calling his personal beliefs a "tactic" of FUD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.93.199 (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

If you have problems with what the reliable sources are saying about Kennedy, take it up with the reliable sources. We just report what they say.

Read the archives of this Talk page: what you are saying has been refutes serval timmes. Kennedy is profoundly ignorant of medicine and cannot tell the difference between a safe and an unsafe vaccine, so, he may be theoretically against the unsafe ones only, but in reality, he is against safe ones too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Replying to Hob Gadling: Clearly you don't "just report" as you claim. Why can't the article report Mr. Kennedy's personal beliefs without editorializing that they are a "tactic" of FUD? As written, the article shows a profound bias, and certainly does not meet the Wikipedia standard of a neutral point of view. Stating that a person's beliefs are just a "tactic" of FUD is not reporting. It is an opinion about that person's state of mind, and it besmirches that person as not actually believing what they say they believe. Your "reliable sources" are not mind readers, and cannot objectively speak to Mr. Kennedy's internal state of mind by denying that believes what he says he believes.

In your reply to me, you also invent false categories of "safe" and "unsafe" vaccines. That is a straw man argument because Mr. Kennedy is not for safe vaccines and against the unsafe vaccines. Rather, he is for vaccines and he wants vaccines to be more safe (see his words quoted above). All approved vaccines are deemed safe, but are not absolutely and infallibly safe. Side effects, though rare, can and do occur, and are sometimes severe. You seem to be using false categories of safe and unsafe vaccines to avoid acknowledging that Mr. Kennedy can reasonably hold the belief that vaccines should be more safe, and he can do so without that being a "tactic" of FUD. The fact that Mr. Kennedy had his own children vaccinated disproves the false claim that his personal belief in better vaccine safety is just a "tactic" of FUD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.93.199 (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the two categories "safe" and "unsafe" are a simplification. But it does not matter: The point is that Kennedy is an ignoramus who rejects the scientific consensus because he does not understance how science works. But all that does not matter.

Your. Thoughts. Are. Irrelevant. See WP:OR.

You. Need. Reliable. Sources. See WP:RS.

The reliable sources we cite agree that what Kennedy says about vaccines is wrong. There is a reliable source which says he is using FUD. It is not Wikipedia authors whoo found that out, it is a reliable source.

You can blather and kick and scream all you want here, those facts do not change. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Replying to Hob Gadling: I'll say this politely: you really don't sound like someone with a neutral point of view. You sound like someone with an agenda to besmirch Mr. Kennedy as an "ignoramus". Are you in charge of editing this article? If you are, you should not be. This article fails to be neutral in many ways, and I've addressed just one of them.

To be very clear, the specific sentence I am criticizing currently says: "Similar to many who share his beliefs, Kennedy has claimed that he is not against vaccines but wishes that they be more thoroughly tested and investigated, a tactic of fear, uncertainty, and doubt as vaccines have been subject to clinical trials, extensive use, and peer-reviewed analysis with low incidence of severe side effects." It is under the heading "Personal Opinions" and the subheading "Autism and vaccines".

To your points:

1) You specifically used the false categories of "safe" and "unsafe" vaccines to dismiss Mr. Kennedy's personal beliefs. But now you say "it doesn't matter" that they are a "simplification". Well, it does matter. Because they are false, not a simplification. And you're using them to drive your agenda, which is to besmirch Mr. Kennedy as an "ignoramus" who does not understand "how science works". Using false categories to try to make a point is unfortunate and evasive. And the moment that science makes any vaccine even a little safer, it proves that it is you who do not understand how science works.

2) You say: I need reliable sources. Who is more reliable about Mr. Kennedy's "Personal Opinions" than Mr. Kennedy himself? Whoever wrote the sentence that I criticized needs reliable sources to support the claim that Mr. Kennedy's personal opinions are a tactic of FUD. In this, they have failed. The two sources, currently cited as footnotes 205 and 206, do not even mention Mr. Kennedy. Neither source purports to read Mr. Kennedy's mind, nor could they read his mind. But someone is using them to besmirch Mr. Kennedy, to say that his personal opinions are not only insincere, but are a tactic of FUD. That's just a blatant misuse of sources. This is truly an abuse of Wikipedia. So, actually, YOU need reliable sources, and you don't have them. Also: you need to not misuse sources.

3) You say: "The reliable sources we cite agree that what Kennedy says about vaccines is wrong." You seem to be intentionally missing the point: the sentence I am addressing is about Mr. Kennedy's personal opinion about vaccines which, quoted in Science, is this:

"I am for vaccines. I have been tracking mercury in fish for 30 years and nobody has called me antifish. I am pro-vaccine. I had all my kids vaccinated. I think vaccines save lives. But we are also seeing an explosion in neurodevelopmental disorders and we ought to be able to do a cost-benefit analysis and see what's causing them. We ought to have robust, transparent science and an independent regulatory agency. Nobody is trying to get rid of vaccines here. I just want safe vaccines." — Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (quoted from the January 10, 2017 Science article currently cited at footnote 203)

Which reliable source says Mr. Kennedy is "wrong" in being for vaccines and for safe vaccines? None of the ones cited.

Which reliable source says Mr. Kennedy is "wrong" in being so much for vaccines that he had his own kids vaccinated? None of the ones cited.

Which reliable source says that Mr. Kennedy is using a tactic of FUD when he states his personal opinion that he is for vaccines and wants safe vaccines? None of the ones cited.

4) You say: "There is a reliable source which says he is using FUD." Which one? Your sources, the specific ones cited at footnote 205 (Damon Centola / U. Penn) and 206 (The Economist), do not even mention Mr. Kennedy, let alone question the sincerity of his personal opinion about vaccines. Nor do they say he is using FUD. They are about anti-vaccine propaganda and vaccine hesitancy, not about the sincerity of Mr. Kennedy's personal opinions. Unfortunately, these sources are being misused to portray Mr. Kennedy's personal opinions as being insincere and as just a tactic of FUD. Again, if this Wikipedia article is "just reporting" Mr. Kennedy's personal opinions, then it should not simultaneously try to besmirch those personal opinions with sources that do not even mention Mr. Kennedy or question his sincerity or say anything about him using FUD. This goes way beyond "just reporting". It is biased mind-reading, and it is a misuse of sources. You have misrepresented what those sources say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.93.199 (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I read the first paragraph, which was bullshit, and not read the rest because it is likely bullshit too. This page is not a forum. It is for improving the article. Read WP:TALK, WP:RS und WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Replying to Hob Gadling: Wow ... just wow. You say my first paragraph "was bullshit", and yet your very reply confirms exactly what I wrote in that paragraph: that you don't appear to be someone with a neutral point of view, and that you are determined to besmirch Mr. Kennedy as an "ignoramus". Your replies have now confirmed exactly what I've written, again and again. So what I've written is exactly on point, not "bullshit".

You say: "This page is not a forum. It is for improving the article." And yet your replies show that you are NOT interested in improving the article. I've identified a serious problem with the article. I've explained it very precisely using a clear, reasoned approach. I've shown that the sources do not support the false claim that Mr. Kennedy's personal opinions are a tactic of FUD. I've shown that describing his personal opinions as a tactic if FUD is not reporting, but rather inappropriate editorializing. You've avoided addressing the problem I identified. Instead, you've been nothing but evasive. You've made it very clear that you're determined to portray Mr. Kennedy as an "ignoramus" who "doesn't know how science works". Your open bias is what makes this article not have a neutral point of view. Your open bias is what makes this article substandard.

I've tried to fix one small part of this article — an important part — which goes to the heart of the question of whether Mr. Kennedy is anti-vaccine or for safer vaccines. But you won't even read what I've written. You've done something very wrong to Mr. Kennedy, and you are apparently so confident of getting away with it that you won't even address the problem I identified. Readers should note what is happening here. This article is a stain on Wikipedia. What a shame. 69.114.93.199 (talk) 01:33, January 30, 2022‎ (UTC)

Again, blabbing and blabbing, but nothing useful. But I have a bit of time now, so, I'll address your three items.

1. Kennedy claims that vaccines cause autism, and that they are dangerous because they contain mercury. Both claims are false. He does not believe what the scientists say. Instead, he believes what the quacks and frauds say, like Andrew Wakefield. Kennedy cannot tell how safe a vaccine is, independent of whether there is a continuum or two categories. Therefore, he cannot tell whether it needs improving.
2. The two sources, currently cited as footnotes 205 and 206, do not even mention Mr. Kennedy. Wow, this sounds like an actual reason! If only you had not hidden it in a wall of boring and completely irrelevant text. I am following this up with another section. Read it to find out how things like this are done.
3. Most anti-vaxxers say that. When Kennedy says, explosion in neurodevelopmental disorders he means autism, and the only connection between autism and vaccines is Wakefield's fake study Kennedy still believes in. We cannot just repeat Kennedy's anti-science propaganda which consists of falsities. See WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Replying to Hob Gadling: This article, and your evasive dismissals of my attempts to improve it, are a textbook example of how people can abuse Wikipedia. If someone undertakes a serious case study of how Wikipedia can be subverted to serve a non-scientific agenda, if not an active smear campaign, this article should be Exhibit A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.93.199 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah right, when your reasoning fails to convince somebody, it's that somebody's fault.

You do not understand what Wikipedia Talk pages are for. Go read WP:TALK. Whatever you are trying to do here, do it somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Replying to Hob Gadling: It's not that my reasoning fails to "convince" somebody. The problem here is that you won't even address my reasoning. You have avoided it over and over, in different ways, from bluntly stating your bias against Mr. Kennedy, to claiming that you wouldn't even read what I had written, to claiming that my reasoning was somehow "hidden" (it was not), to repeated referrals to various Wikipedia pages. You've used every avoidance tactic available to prevent reasonable discussion, and thus to avoid correcting the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.93.199 (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not required to read or address what you write. See WP:WALLOFTEXT. If you want to force people to listen to you, employ and pay them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you are using every available tactic to avoid a reasonable discussion of a problem with the article. You're latest tactic is to claim that I've written a "wall of text", when I've done no such thing. The policy you cited describes exactly what you are doing here. It is the "questionable strategy is dismissal of legitimate evidence and valid rationales with a claim of 'text-walling'". See WP:WALLOFTEXT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.93.199 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Short description

Per WP:HOWTOSD the short description should be no more than 40 characters. The editorial words "environmental" and "anti-vaccine" push the count beyond the desired 40. Besides, his legal work and activism goes beyond the environment and vaccinations. These terms go beyond the purpose of the SD, which is to give the reader a glimpse of what the article is about. Besides, they lapse into the forbidden "controversial or judgemental" zone. – S. Rich (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@KJP1: RSVP? – S. Rich (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Srich32977 - Hi, and thanks for bringing it here. The 40 characters is a guide and can be exceeded. What’s more important is that the SD accurately summarises the content. Kennedy’s stance on vaccines is by some way his most notable aspect and should be reflected in the SD. I don’t agree it shades into the “forbidden controversial”; it is what the sources say. KJP1 (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@KJP1: I think you are focusing too much on some aspects of the article content. WP:SHORTDESC says the SD is a "concise explanation of the scope of the page." When we add the POV descriptions we loose the desired concision. Suppose we said "energy conservation attorney" or "pro-health activist"? Or suppose we mentioned his media appearances? These descriptions are sorta accurate, but not NPOV. And they do not help the reader in discovering the scope of the article. Let's shorten the short. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding/misinterpreting POV and NPOV. And that your proposed SD would mislead the reader by giving an inaccurate SD. KJP1 (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see an issue with the current short description. ––FormalDude talk 00:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. KJP1 (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theorist" as an Occupation

I am having a small revert war with another Editor. I have no axe to grind regarding RFK Jr, but I don't see how anyone can support the use of "conspiracy theorist" as an occupation. Makes no sense to me. The other editor leaves no explanations despite my request for clarification. Dunno what else to do... Suggestions? Quietcat22 (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As the “other editor”; you made absolutely no request for clarification and I was completely clear. All that you needed to do was come here and give your rationale for deleting the phrase. Then other editors can give their views and a consensus will emerge. That’s how this place works. KJP1 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm obviously not as experienced as you. I left comments on the Edit Summary. I apologize if that was not correct protocol. I have clearly found the other method. I'll ask here though, how do you consider "conspiracy theorist" as an occupation? Quietcat22 (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" is a weaponized phrase that has no place in an encyclopedia, and smacks of bias and hostility Donn Edwards (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how reordering the Occupation(s) list, and moving, "conspiracy theorist" to last, solves the issue.Quietcat22 (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have removed it for, but I suspect someone will soon re-add it. I agree it is ill-fitting as an "occupation": I think it's more of an offshoot of his anti-vaccine activism, albeit a part that gets attention from editors influenced by WP:RECENTISM, new spikes, and the global pandemic. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand its origin, but it is clearly derogatory and opinion Quietcat22 (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not. Conspiracy theories are pretty clearly defined, and this guy has them, as reliable sources have pointed out.

It's not an occupation, but it is a real (but dysfunctional) way of thinking. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Dysfunctional? This is hardly an objective way of looking at this. Somebody can theorize about the possibility of a conspiracy. That theory may be incorrect, or - as happens in many cases - it may turn out that the theory turns out to be proven by facts. Theorizing about the possibility of something is not a dysfunctional way of thinking, but a perfectly scientific, analytical way of thinking. 70.178.60.181 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory is not a theory the same way a seahorse is not a horse. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" is not an occupation. And though it is derogatory, it is also pretty clearly defined. But whether Kennedy fits that definition is doubtful. Opposing vaccines or thinking they cause autism is not a conspiracy. Str1977 <sup>(talk)</sup> 20:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Are we just touting our own views here, or reporting what the sources say? KJP1 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

We are also following NPOV. Unlike WP, sources are not bound by that principle. Str1977 <sup>(talk)</sup> 16:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

You should actually read WP:NPOV. It does not say what you think it says. It means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. So, when reliable sources call him that, we call him that. End of story. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If RFK Jr is labeled as a "conspiracy theorist", then should we go through every other notable person's wiki page and label them as such if they believe things like: Second gunman during JFK assassination, Russian interference in US Elections, Bush did 9/11, Egyptians were black, CIA invented crack-cocaine to destroy black communities...etc.

If so, then we need to go through pages for people like Oliver Stone, Rachel Maddow, Nancy Pelosi, etc. and add the phrase "Conspiracy theorist" to their intro paragraphs. Mtedwar3 (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

should we go through every other notable person's wiki page and label them as such If reliable sources call them that, as they do with this guy, then yes. If not, then no. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

So if a "reliable source" describes a certain event or topic as a "conspiracy theory", and then someone expresses belief in that conspiracy theory, would that meet the same standard? Or does it have to explicitly be a "reliable source" directly calling someone a conspiracy theorist before your standards are met? Mtedwar3 (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If you remove the scare quotes, the second. The first would be WP:SYNTH. If you include the scare quotes, meaning that the sources are not really reliable, then neither works.

The WP:MENTOR page can help you find someone who explains basic stuff like this to you, and you won't have to do it on article talk pages, which are not really the right place for this. This page is for improving one specific article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

They're not "scare quotes". They're just regular quotes Mtedwar3 (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove "conspiracy theorist" and "anti-vaccine propagandist." He has uncovered uncomfortable truths about Fauci and others. That does not mean he is against vaccines in general. Also "conspiracy theorist" is derogatory and inappropriate - not least because a) it is someone's (politically motivated) opinion and b) it is not a vocation. I thought Wikipedia was to be something of a fact-based encyclopedia. I can't/won't continue funding support for Wikipedia if you don't revert back to fact-based write-ups on people. It seems that you are targeting Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and yet you are NOT targeting Oliver Stone, Nancy Pelosi and others. I am not a democrat and I am fully Covid vaccinated. That does not mean I can support any form of hypocrisy when I see it. Clean up the information on Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and regain some credibility.LD270 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The article follows what the reliable sources say.

You can change an article by bringing reliable sources. Not by uttering opinions, not by threatening to stop bribes, not by telling stories about yourself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn’t this a question of what the RS say? If they say he’s involved with conspiracy theories, then it’s perfectly acceptable to say so here. Occupation is a category or label. Consensus from similar articles should apply here. Artificial Nagger (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

If Wikipedia asks for funding, providing it to Wikipedia is not a bribe, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LD270 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

No - but as the only two edits you have ever made to Wikipedia are to this Talkpage, your claim to be a regular donor lacks credibility. KJP1 (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

If you expect certain actions in exchange for the donation, then it is a bribe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Robert F Kennedy Jr donated to RAGA

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2022/02/09/rfk-jr-busted-making-a-political-donation-to-raga/

https://popular.info/p/republican-attorneys-general-association

There are now allegations that Robert F Kennedy Jr donated to Republican Attorney Generals according to these articles 2601:640:C681:C260:8DAF:549C:3B98:E579 (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither of these sources appears to meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source. Can you please provide better sources? Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

https://dems.ag/new-daga-calls-on-raga-to-return-illegal-50000-contribution-from-rfk-jr-anti-vax-group/

We have press releases so far2601:640:C681:C260:40B7:4CCD:8652:D281 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.rawstory.com/anti-vaxxers-2656596318/

Here is more media outlets reporting on the RFK Jr. Connections to RAGA 2601:640:C681:C260:1029:D16C:79A5:C127 (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

"propogandist"

The appropriate, professional, and neutral word would be "proponent". To find a contemporary American labeled a propogandist, (for obviously politically biased reasons) and on Wikipedia no less, disgusts and disappoints me. 67.87.170.170 (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

When there is a consensus in science that what someone says is false, and that someone keeps saying false things, then "propagandist" is the right word. This is the case for Kennedy: what he says about vaccines has been refuted again and again.

Independent of that, the statements are sourced to reliable sources. You have no leg to stand on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article describes Mr. Kennedy as an anti-vaccine "propagandist". You say this statement is sourced to "reliable sources", and yet the term "propagandist" has no citation to any source. What Mr. Kennedy actually says about vaccines is that they should be made safer and should not be mandated. See his interview in Science in 2017. This has not been refuted as "false". The use of the term "propagandist" here, not cited to any source, appears to reflect your own editorial bias, premised on the notion that Mr. Kennedy is an "ignoramus" (your word) and a crackpot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.93.199 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If you read WP:LEADCITE, you will learn that the lead does not need cites because it is a summary of the article. Further down in the Kennedy article, you will find the word "propagandist" sourced to [18], which says that Kennedy makes anti-vaccine propaganda films. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

FUD

The article says, a tactic of fear, uncertainty, and doubt as vaccines have been subject to clinical trials, extensive use, and peer-reviewed analysis with low incidence of severe side effects. One of the sources given does not mention Kennedy. The other won't let me read it without logging in. Using the first one is WP:SYNTH, and I will delete it now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Reply to Hob Gadling: Again, the cited source (The Economist article titled "Vaccine hesitancy is putting progress against covid-19 at risk") does not even mention Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and makes no statements about his personal opinion. It appears that you have cited the source for improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which appears to be your opinion. This is against Wikipedia policy WP:SYNTH. The cited source is an article in The Economist about vaccine hesitancy, not about Mr. Kennedy's personal opinion. The source talks about actual tactics that induce vaccine hesitancy (although it does not use the word "tactic"). These include spreading misinformation and lies, such as about microchips, infertility and damage to DNA. The source does not mention Mr. Kennedy or state that his personal opinion about vaccines is a tactic. As quoted in Science (current footnote 203), Mr. Kennedy is "for vaccines" and "pro-vaccine", believes that vaccines "save lives", and had his own children vaccinated. In that 2017 Science interview, Mr. Kennedy appears to share the then president-elect's desire to have "the safest vaccine supply that we can have". He concludes by saying, "I just want safe vaccines." The Economist article cited for the "tactic of FUD" claim on Wikipedia does not mention Mr. Kennedy or his personal opinion, and does not state that his personal opinion is somehow a tactic of FUD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.93.199 (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

You claim that The Economist article does not even mention Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.. I cannot confirm that since it demands a login from me, so I am waiting for someone other than you to confirm it, because you do not seem to be competent enough to judge it. As soon as that happens, we can delete the whole sentence and the remaining source.

I don't know what you mean by imply a new conclusion, which appears to be your opinion. What is that conclusion?

Mr. Kennedy is "for vaccines" and "pro-vaccine", believes that vaccines "save lives", and had his own children vaccinated. So what? This is not a reason not to call him an anti-vaxxer, as has been explained on this page numerous times. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply to Hob Gadling: I can read the Economist article without logging in. But so far, you have been willing to keep citing the Economist article to besmirch Mr. Kennedy without even being able to read it. If an article is hidden behind a login, then it should not be used as a source to besmirch someone as an anti-vaxxer against their own clearly expressed pro-vaccine view.

The section titled "Personal Opinions" should report on Mr. Kennedy's personal opinions, not editorialize about them. The new conclusion you're making is that his personal opinion in favor vaccines, including better vaccine safety, is "a tactic of FUD". This is a new conclusion not supported by the cited sources. It is also illogical to assert that someone's personal opinion is a tactic of anything. For example, if reporting that someone's personal opinion is that God exists, that should not then be described as a "tactic" to sell bibles. Or, for example, if reporting that someone's personal opinion is that automobiles can be made safer, that should not then be described as a "tactic" to discourage people from driving. Personal opinions should be simply reported without editorializing.

Mr. Kennedy's clearly expressed opinion in favor of vaccines is most certainly a reason not to call him an anti-vaxxer. Your claim to the contrary is illogical. If someone is "pro" something, then they are not simulaneously "anti" that same thing. The term "anti-vaxxer" should not be misused to lump together people who are against vaccines entirely with people who are for vaccine choice (against vaccine mandates), or people who are in favor of better vaccine research and regulation. Lumping everyone together under one "anti-vaxxer" umbrella is false and misleading and a disservice to Wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.93.199 (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing worth commenting on here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I can confirm that https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/02/13/vaccine-hesitancy-is-putting-progress-against-covid-19-at-risk does not mention Kennedy at all. ––FormalDude talk 00:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Just deleted the FUD sentence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that Hob Gadling appears to be driving a non-neutral, biased agenda on this page. Hob Gadling used a false claim of "reliable sources" above to besmirch Mr. Kennedy, before eventually relenting and making one small change, after it was shown that reliable sources did not support one of this article's unfounded claims about Mr. Kennedy. It took a great deal of effort to overcome Hob's repeated dismissals and evasions, before the change was eventually made. Now the same non-neutral dismissive tone appears again in Hob's response in the "propogandist" section below. This pattern suggests an effort to besmirch Mr. Kennedy, described by Hob as an "ignoramus", rather than to write a neutral, informative encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.93.199 (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Bullshit. Go to some forum to whine. This is not a forum.

Changes are made when the reasoning for those changes is good enough. Your reasoning was not good enough - it was mainly white noise - so the changes did not happen until it was. This article is besieged by anti-science crackpots, like every other article about anti-science crackpots. They all say that the articles are "biased" and "not neutral", but they all have no clue. See WP:YWAB.

This article is based on reliable sources. They say Kennedy's stance on vaccines is wrong. End of story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, I thoroughly disproved your claim of "reliable sources" to the point that you made the specific correction I requested. So you now have a track record of waiving the "reliable sources" flag as a false cover to besmirch Mr. Kennedy, who you describe as an "ignoramus". You admittedly could not even login to read one source that you relied upon. The topic is not whether Mr. Kennedy's "stance on vaccines is wrong", but whether this article is using accurate neutral language. Your comments and tone betray an agenda to besmirch Mr. Kennedy rather than to write an unbiased article in accordance with Wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.93.199 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You have "disproved" nothing. If you can give a good reason why any of the sources used in the article should not be regarded as reliable, bring it. Otherwise, go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You claimed to have "reliable sources" for a false claim of FUD. When it was shown that none of the sources supported that false claim, you eventually made the specific change I requested (after your many attempts at dismissal and evasion). So your claim of "reliable sources" was disproven. There were no reliable sources for the false claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.93.199 (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I made a mistake, and I admitted and corrected it. Case closed.

Was there anything you wanted to say that is relevant to further improvement of the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

Kennedy is not a conspiracy theorist, his works have data from reputable sources. 193.116.207.106 (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Anti-vaccine advocate (though it may well be propaganda)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all,

I changed a single word today 'propagandist' to 'advocate' as I recall that is what this article actually used for a long time, and I changed it back because I believe that is the description that is most apt and most frequently used by readily available, reliable secondary sources across the interwebs . I think that many might agree that what is being espoused is propaganda, but the descriptor of "propagandist" seems to me to be using a descriptive that is not used by any of the RS. Here are just a few where they may describe such individuals as "anti-vaccine advocates" or "dissemination of misinformation", but I cannot find a prominent RS that consistently uses the "propagandist" label, especially for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in particular:

• https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/05/12/993615185/for-some-anti-vaccine-advocates-misinformation-is-part-of-a-business
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/toddessig/2015/04/27/how-to-talk-to-anti-vaccine-advocates-without-your-head-exploding/?sh=70dde884660e
• https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/544712-twelve-anti-vaxxers-are-responsible-for-two
• https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/538408-robert-f-kennedy-jr-banned-from-instagram-over

If we can come to some consensus on this, I would just change the word "propagandist" to "advocate" again (like it was previously). Thanks! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 21:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The "advocacy group" he founded, Children's Health Defense, is described by RS as propaganda:

• https://www.counterhate.com/_files/ugd/f4d9b9_fddbfb2a0c05461cb4bdce2892f3cad0.pdf
• https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kennedy-jr-distorted-vaccine-science1/

––FormalDude talk 22:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I believe that we should describe him (especially in the lead) using the language that RS's use to refer to him. I cited four above, but I am open to read of others and see what the preponderance of RS's use to describe him. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 01:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I went through those RS'es, and even in the case of Children's Health Defense, I believe "misinformation" would be a more accurate reading of all six of the RS'es cited in the lead of Children's Health Defense describing it as "mainly propaganda." If you search for that word, I couldn't find it. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 01:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

From the Scientific American article: For more than a decade, Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda completely unconnected to reality. ––FormalDude talk 02:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, these sources:

• "The Anti-Vaccine Propaganda of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr." McGill University.
• "How a Kennedy Built an Anti-Vaccine Juggernaut Amid COVID-19" U.S. News.
• "Guests urged to be vaccinated at anti-vaxxer Robert F Kennedy Jr’s party" The Guardian.

I think the use of the word "propaganda" is easily verified in reliable sources. ––FormalDude talk 02:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Even so, these sources not describe him as a "propagandist". It seems to me that an "anti-vaccine advocate", still is the most common description by itself, including in the sources you provided above. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

"Propagandist" is highly biased and slanted phraseology. As an unbiased platform, it is our duty to ensure that the position is being represented fairly and without prejudice. Therefore "advocate" or "proponent" would be much more neutral, less biased sounding terms. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, since the untruths Kennedy propagates about vaccines are highly biased themselves, the term fits. But let's see what other users who have more than a few months of Wikipedia experience think. At the moment it's 2:0 for "propagandist" as the most fitting term. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

We don’t source to ourselves, but if you look at how we define advocacy and propaganda, the latter seems to me a much more accurate description of what RFK Jr. is/does. And there are RS to support it. While I agree the term advocate is more “neutral”, I don’t think it is more accurate, see False balance, “gives unsupported or dubious positions an illusion of respectability”. KJP1 (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If we were at risk of changing the overall picture of RFK Jr. outside of what the sources reflect by the alteration of this one word, I'd agree with you KJP1 that we should leave the text in its currently altered state (previously—just a few weeks ago—it read as "anti-vaccine advocate" too), but given the rest of the lead and sections like this, this, and this, I do not believe that there is any unreasonable risk of this page "[giving] unsupported...respectability" to this man. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, what is meant by this, "But let's see what other users who have more than a few months of Wikipedia experience think."? This is not personal, but an open question regarding the use of a single word that I believe the readings of the majority of sources do not themselves use. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Exactly what it says: Let's see what other users think. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Th78blue:

• The US News and the Guardian source states Dr. Richard Allen Williams, a cardiologist, professor of medicine at UCLA and founder of the Minority Health Institute, said Kennedy is leading “a propaganda movement,” and “absolutely a racist operation” that is particularly dangerous to the Black community.
• The Daily Beast states Over the weekend, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the world’s leading (translation: most dangerous) anti-vax conspiracy theorist, was one of many kooky speakers railing against COVID vaccines and mandates at a “Defeat the Mandates” rally in Washington, D.C.
• The Advocate states We are appalled that Attorney General Jeff Landry would associate himself with the testimony of social media propagandist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who called coronavirus protection “the deadliest vaccine ever made.” ––FormalDude talk 18:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you FormalDude, I appreciate those, but 1/3 (The Advocate) used the term in question. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 19:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Someone who is reported as leading "a propaganda movement" should be labeled a propagandist. And the other source calls him a conspiracy theorist. ––FormalDude talk 21:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we have another example of where that is the case? Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 21:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I do not think that RFK Jr. will appear any less of a promoter of misinformation and propaganda if we revert to the original phrasing that this lead section had, as an "anti-vaccine advocate." If that is in fact the concern. I would not use the words "anti-vaccine proponent" any more than I would use "anti-vaccine propagandist", because while one is too positive (proponent) and unfairly biases the reader in favor of RFK Jr., the other is no more negative, but is pulling a new word into use that—so far as I can tell—has only been used in a single RS. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 21:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It's been reported in at least five reliable sources, all quoting Richard Allen Williams, who is a subject-matter expert. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

Additionally, he has been called verbatim a social media propagandist. [24] ––FormalDude talk 21:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully FormalDude, Source: [25] does not use the term, and neither does, [26], nor [27], nor [28], nor [29]. In fact the direct quote is, Dr Richard Allen Williams, cardiologist and founder of the Minority Health Institute, said Kennedy was leading "a propaganda movement" and "absolutely a racist operation" which aims to target misinformation towards groups that may be more prone to distrust the vaccine, including mothers and Black Americans. I just do not want us to be inventing language not used directly by the sources, not trying to whitewash this guys record here or anything like that... This is why my only suggested change to the entire article is to change the one word "anti-vaccine propagandist" to "anti-vaccine advocate" which is actually a term often used by many of the sources that you cited. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 14:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not think we are "inventing language" by saying that a person who leads a propaganda movement is a propagandist. ––FormalDude talk 21:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right. Inventing may have been too much, but inserting language, might be a more appropriate way to describe what I see occurring. Given that the sources mentioned (including all those you cited, minus one, I've seen so far) refer to RFK Jr. as an "anti-vaccine advocate." As I understand it, it is the role of this encyclopedia to serve as a careful representative of the information presented in the RS'es, and not to re-word when such a rewording may insert added meaning or connotation.

In this case, I do believe that this one word may even be accurate in some sense, but it is wording not selected by the RS'es, and we must presume that is for a reason. The "anti-vaccine advocate" term already comes with a connotation of one who is not an academic. One who is biased and who does not look at, or carefully consider the facts, and who in this case, even pushes misinformation. The very notion of "advocacy" is in many respects anti-academic, and not-neutral. However, most pertinent to our consideration, "anti-vaccine advocate" is the term used by the sources that you and I both have presented as part of the determination regarding whether or not this should remain "anti-vaccine propagandist" or return to the original wording this article used when I first saw it, as "anti-vaccine advocate." ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 00:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

comes with a connotation of one who is not an academic This makes no sense in so many ways. An advocate is a lawyer. Lawyers are academics. Kennedy is a lawyer. Being an academic says nothing about intelligence, competence or honesty. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I am thinking in terms of these two definitions:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advocate%7Cadvocate

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propagandist

For the record, it shows that "advocate" is in the top 1% of words, whereas "propagandist" is in the top 6%, this may not seem like a big difference, but it does actually show that one is a more obscure reference than "anti-vaccine advocate" would be as well. I think we are largely in agreement, this may just be semantics at this point. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that it is better to describe what people do rather than what they are. As such, I've tried to reword the intro, but if someone wants to revert me per WP:BRD, that's fine too. jps (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Your version is significantly better, IMO. Endwise (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I concur, this version reads better and holds true to the many RS'es that we have seen. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

We absolutely should not be using labels which reliable sources do not use. Saying that someone has spread propaganda, and opening their Wikipedia article with "... is a propagandist" are substantively different claims, so require different sourcing. For instance it is rather undeniably true that Voice of America has spread propaganda, but we absolutely do not have the sourcing to open the article with "Voice of America is a propagandist radio broadcaster". They are significantly different, and if you disagree I would be interested if you would be willing to add "is a propagandist radio broadcaster" to the opening sentence of Voice of America in good faith. If reliable sources do not apply the label "propagandist" to him, why should we? Why should Wikipedia go against reliable sources? We should just WP:STICKTOSOURCES instead of going above and beyond what reliable sources say in order to denigrate a BLP subject who we don't like. Endwise (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I've never heard of Voice of America, but I have to assume their notability isn't based primarily on propaganda and conspiracy, as RFK's is. And reliable sources do label him a propagandist, as has been pointed out multiple times above.

That said, I support @jps's revision. Perhaps this discussion can be closed. ––FormalDude talk 18:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It's clearly an improvement, and it does not water down the content. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am in favor of closing this particular conversation. What does that entail exactly FormalDude? Do we delete or archive the conversation? ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Real Anthony Fauci

Where is this book mentioned?! 2603:6080:2D06:D100:9011:4482:336:4F09 (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

In two sections: COVID-19 and Selected works. A trick I use is the Find function on my browser. In my Chrome browser, I click on three little dots in the upper right portion of the screen and select Find. I think it's Find on Page in some other browsers. I can enter any word, like "real" in this case, and it takes me to all of the uses of the word on that page. I hope this helps. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Ivermectin etc.

Are you sure about ivermectin? I think a lot of stuff, not alone on Wikipedia, about Covid and Covid "misinformation" already looks pretty embarrassing. Also, Fauci really looks like somebody in need of serious criticism. Don't know if Kennedy's take on him is to be taken serious, of course.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

For Wikipedia, it does not matter how it looks to you. Only how it looks to reliable sources matters. The sources you get your information from seem to be not very trustworthy if they tell a different story.

Kennedy is a scientific know-nothing whose opinions on scientific matters are more or less random. He happens to agree with the scientific evidence on climate change, but not on vaccinations. Don't take his opinions seriously. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

So, it doesn't "matter how it looks to [Ralfdetlef]." Then, you go on to rationalize the horrendous and defamatory tone of this article in terms of your own over-the-top opinions about how Kennedy is a "scientific know-nothing" and his opinions are "more or less random." And then you command the OP to "not take his opinions seriously." Really neutral of you, Hob! Good job! Edsanville (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE. There are no WP:RS which say that Kennedy has a point on any of his attempts to revolutionize medical science, but there are enough RS to say his ideas have no basis in reality. We have to follow the RS in the article.

Kennedy is a lawyer, and he has no scientific education. His job is to defend a predefined position, no matter whether it is true. And that is what he is doing. He defends a false position. How is if "defamatory" to say that he is doing his job and that his knowledge about science is about as high as expected from his education?

I am sorry, but I cannot find a better description for someone who embraces Andrew Wakefield's fake study than "scientific know-nothing". That study is so bad, even without the proven falsifications Brian Deer uncovered, that is should never have been published. British media have learned from having pushed it so much, causing a decline in vaccination rates and an increase in preventable diseases, and they have become much more cautious because of that. No honest, competent person has defended Wakefield since his dishonesty came to light. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

+1 Hob.

Also, please read and understand WP:TALK & WP:FORUM. --Julius Senegal (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda and conspiracy theories

I am concerned because RFK Jr.'s published works contain true information yet this page labels him as promoting "propaganda and conspiracy theories". This language should be changed 2600:1700:1C24:C070:74D1:E7E6:78A4:10FF (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--A09090091 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia is demonstrating its ridiculousness. It can accuse literally anybody of "propaganda," which is a MASSIVELY POV word, and yet anybody who wants to revert to more neutral language is told that they cannot do that unless they find support among the hand-picked outlets that are deemed "reliable sources" by the incredibly biased and slanted majority of editors who rule this website with an iron fist. Imagine writing such an attack article about a living human, and pretending to be neutral and have the high ground. This is yet another example of why I stopped contributing to this cesspool of a website. What a shame, and how far down Wikipedia has slid. Edsanville (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a reliable source because it is not really reliable, go to the Talk page of WP:RSP.

If you have a problem with a reliable source because it disagrees with your own opinion, then you should consider the possibility that your own opinion is wrong. (Haha. No chance of that, I know.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

TOTALLY agree !!!

this is not FACTS but OPINIONS - by using words like "propaganda and conspiracy theories" instead of just "promoting anti-vaccine information and theories"!!! 24.28.107.150 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

You can agree using as many capital letters as you want, your opinion that it is an opinion does not matter. Only what reliable sources say matters. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Who wrote this crap?

This article about JFK Jr. is so adjunk left Tinnfoilcrap, it's not only unbelievable, it's also pure misinformation. We're still in the finding phase of thruth, so I don't expect an answer to my question before the pandemic trials have passed. 178.24.232.68 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Elections

New Hampshire primary 65.175.193.68 (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Kennedy avidly supports New Hampshire’s first in nation Democratic Primary. SweetBessy (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2022

REMOVE THE MISINFORMATION IN THE FIRST LINE THAT Robert F. Kennedy Jr. IS PUSHING ANTI-VACCINE PROPAGANDA! THIS IS A LIE AND BLATANT MISINFORMATION. CITING THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 2603:6081:3D01:5D30:FD53:C519:F20E:CE5F (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Prior consensus for the content was developed earlier this year. See this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

that's not how it works!

YOU need to provide established consensus before using opinion words like "propaganda and conspiracy theories"!!

Tha correct FACTUAL edit should read: "promoting anti-vaccine information and theories" !!!!!! 24.28.107.150 (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's how it works. See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RS. Your suggestion violates WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:TINFOILHAT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Your wordings in the covid-19 paragraphs actually add weight to Kennedy's points.

You accuse Kennedy of 'false' opinions. No! they are real opinions. There is no scientific consensus on covid and efficacy of vaccines (recent california ruling in favor of doctors who wish to go against the "rules" in prescribing treatment). There is only government consensus.

Wikipedia once again shows us it is just another arm of the oligarchy's disinformation arsenal 49.176.129.93 (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

What government is that? The one in the country you happen to live in?

Your opinion does not carry any weight here. Reliable sources carry weight. When I said, Your suggestion violates WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:TINFOILHAT, I meant it. Go read those pages. I will also throw in WP:LUNATICS and WP:YWAB for you to read. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It is clear that Mr. Kennedy does not shy away from disagreeing with overwhelming scientific evidence. SweetBessy (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Unlock

Lockdown is mostly over but for some reason this page about a scion of one of America's greatest political families is still locked. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.163 (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Because his fans are wont to turn the article into an anti-vax propaganda piece by adding the false rumors this scion of anti-science spreads. Please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)